Commentary

Stephen Wellman
 

Bloggers Worry Google Might Reverse Its Position On Net Neutrality

Drew Clark over at GigaOM asks a great question: Does Google plan to change its position on net neutrality? It seems that while Google has been the foremost business booster for net neutrality in public, the online company has been cutting deals with the carriers to be their preferred provider.

Drew Clark over at GigaOM asks a great question: Does Google plan to change its position on net neutrality? It seems that while Google has been the foremost business booster for net neutrality in public, the online company has been cutting deals with the carriers to be their preferred provider.Google Senior Policy Counsel Andrew McLaughlin made some interesting remarks at the Tech Policy Summit in San Jose on Feb. 27:


More Mobility Insights

White Papers

More >>

Reports

More >>

Webcasts

More >>

Cutting the FCC out the picture would probably be a smart move. It is much better to think of this as an FTC or unfair competition type of problem.

Compare this with comments from Google's Vint Cerf during Senate testimony just one year earlier:

For the foreseeable future most Americans will face little choice among broadband carriers. Enshrining a rule that permits carriers to discriminate in favor of certain kinds or sources of services would place those carriers in control of online activity. Allowing broadband carriers to reserve huge amounts of bandwidth for their own services will not give consumers the broadband Internet our country and economy need.

McLaughlin's comments are apparently causing bloggers to worry. These comments also are making people inside Google, as well as some of Google's partners in the fight for net neutrality, a little uncomfortable.

Is this an example of an attorney just trying to keep options open or does it hint at a shift in Google's strategy? What do you think? Is Google about to sell out on net neutrality or is it just trying to find some wiggle room?


Related Reading




Currently we allow the following HTML tags in comments:

Single tags

These tags can be used alone and don't need an ending tag.

<br> Defines a single line break

<hr> Defines a horizontal line

Matching tags

These require an ending tag - e.g. <i>italic text</i>

<a> Defines an anchor

<b> Defines bold text

<big> Defines big text

<blockquote> Defines a long quotation

<caption> Defines a table caption

<cite> Defines a citation

<code> Defines computer code text

<em> Defines emphasized text

<fieldset> Defines a border around elements in a form

<h1> This is heading 1

<h2> This is heading 2

<h3> This is heading 3

<h4> This is heading 4

<h5> This is heading 5

<h6> This is heading 6

<i> Defines italic text

<p> Defines a paragraph

<pre> Defines preformatted text

<q> Defines a short quotation

<samp> Defines sample computer code text

<small> Defines small text

<span> Defines a section in a document

<s> Defines strikethrough text

<strike> Defines strikethrough text

<strong> Defines strong text

<sub> Defines subscripted text

<sup> Defines superscripted text

<u> Defines underlined text

InformationWeek encourages readers to engage in spirited, healthy debate, including taking us to task. However, InformationWeek moderates all comments posted to our site, and reserves the right to modify or remove any content that it determines to be derogatory, offensive, inflammatory, vulgar, irrelevant/off-topic, racist or obvious marketing/SPAM. InformationWeek further reserves the right to disable the profile of any commenter participating in said activities.

Disqus Tips To upload an avatar photo, first complete your Disqus profile. | View the list of supported HTML tags you can use to style comments. | Please read our commenting policy.
T-Shirt Giveaway T-Shirt Giveaway: Each week we're selecting one great comment from our readers. The author of the comment will receive an InformaitonWeek Community t-shirt. So get posting!
Subscribe to RSS

Resource Links