The Debate over Net Neutrality

Filed under: Official Google Blog — Wrote by Lees on Monday, December 3rd, 2007 @ 10:12 pm

Posted by Andrew McLaughlin, Senior
Policy Counsel

The debate over "net neutrality" is coming to a boil in
the next week as the House of Representatives is due to vote on a
bill that could determine the future of the Internet. The big phone
and cable TV companies want Congress’s permission to create a new,
unprecedented regulatory bureaucracy on the Internet – a private
bureaucracy of broadband monopolists with the power to determine
what content gets to you first and fastest. Google believes that
forcing people and companies to get permission from, and pay
special fees to, the phone and cable companies to connect with one
another online is fundamentally counter to the freedom and
innovation that have defined the Internet.

Our CEO Eric Schmidt believes this situation is so important that
he has written an open letter to Google users asking them to speak
out on this issue. We urge all of you to href="http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html" >read his
letter and call your
representative in Congress
at 202-224-3121. For more
information on the issue, and more ways to make your voice be
heard, visit href="http://itsournet.org/" >It'sOurNet.org.

Update: For those
following this debate closely, the key House vote is happening
Thursday night or Friday morning on the Markey-Boucher-Eshoo-Inslee
Amendment, which would add meaningful net neutrality provisions to
href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h5252rh.txt.pdf" >
H.R. 5252, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and
Enhancement (COPE) Act. We believe anything less that this
amendment would be a loss for freedom and innovation on the
Internet.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Google in China

Filed under: Official Google Blog — Wrote by Lees on Monday, December 3rd, 2007 @ 10:12 pm

Posted by Andrew McLaughlin, senior
policy counsel

Google users in China today struggle with a service that, to be
blunt, isn't very good. href="http://www.google.com/" >Google.com appears to be down
around 10% of the time. Even when users can reach it, the website
is slow, and sometimes produces results that when clicked on, stall
out the user's browser. Our href="http://news.google.com/" >Google News service is never
available; href="http://www.google.com/imghp?hl=en&tab=wi&q=" >Google
Images is accessible only half the time. At Google we work hard
to create a great experience for our users, and the level of
service we've been able to provide in China is not something
we're proud of.

This problem could only be resolved by creating a local presence,
and this week we did so, by launching href="http://Google.cn" >Google.cn, our website for the
People's Republic of China. In order to do so, we have agreed
to remove certain sensitive information from our search results. We
know that many people are upset about this decision, and frankly,
we understand their point of view. This wasn't an easy choice,
but in the end, we believe the course of action we've chosen
will prove to be the right one.

Launching a Google domain that restricts information in any way
isn't a step we took lightly. For several years, we've
debated whether entering the Chinese market at this point in
history could be consistent with our mission and values. Our
executives have spent a lot of time in recent months talking with
many people, ranging from those who applaud the Chinese government
for its embrace of a market economy and its lifting of 400 million
people out of poverty to those who disagree with many of the
Chinese government's policies, but who wish the best for China
and its people. We ultimately reached our decision by asking
ourselves which course would most effectively further Google's
mission to organize the world's information and make it
universally useful and accessible. Or, put simply: how can we
provide the greatest access to information to the greatest number
of people?

Filtering our search results clearly compromises our mission.
Failing to offer Google search at all to a fifth of the world's
population, however, does so far more severely. Whether our critics
agree with our decision or not, due to the severe quality problems
faced by users trying to access Google.com from within China, this
is precisely the choice we believe we faced. By launching Google.cn
and making a major ongoing investment in people and infrastructure
within China, we intend to change that.

No, we're not going to offer some Google products, such as href="http://mail.google.com/mail/" >Gmail or href="http://www.blogger.com/home" >Blogger, on Google.cn until
we're comfortable that we can do so in a manner that respects
our users' interests in the privacy of their personal
communications. And yes, Chinese regulations will require us to
remove some sensitive information from our search results. When we
do so, we'll disclose this to users, just as we already do in
those rare instances where we alter results in order to comply with
local laws in France, Germany and the U.S.

Obviously, the situation in China is far different than it is in
those other countries; while China has made great strides in the
past decades, it remains in many ways closed. We aren't happy
about what we had to do this week, and we hope that over time
everyone in the world will come to enjoy full access to
information. But how is that full access most likely to be
achieved? We are convinced that the Internet, and its continued
development through the efforts of companies like Google, will
effectively contribute to openness and prosperity in the world. Our
continued engagement with China is the best (perhaps only) way for
Google to help bring the tremendous benefits of universal
information access to all our users there.

We're in this for the long haul. In the years to come,
we'll be making significant and growing investments in China.
Our launch of google.cn, though filtered, is a necessary first step
toward achieving a productive presence in a rapidly changing
country that will be one of the world's most important and
dynamic for decades to come. To some people, a hard compromise may
not feel as satisfying as a withdrawal on principle, but we believe
it's the best way to work toward the results we all desire.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Google goes to Washington

Filed under: Official Google Blog — Wrote by Lees on Monday, December 3rd, 2007 @ 10:11 pm

Posted by Andrew McLaughlin, Senior
Policy Counsel

It seems that policymaking and regulatory activity in Washington,
D.C. affect Google and our users more every day. It’s important to
be involved - to participate in the policy process and contribute
to the debates that inform it. So we’ve opened up a shop there. The
first member of our Washington team is href="http://www.google.com/search?q=alan davidson" >Alan
Davidson, a veteran thinker and advocate for issues we care
about.

Our mission in Washington boils down to this: Defend the Internet
as a free and open platform for information, communication and
innovation. OK, that sounds a little high and mighty, so let me
break it down into something a bit wonkier with a sampling of the
U.S. policy issues we’re working on:

Net neutrality. As voice,
video, and data rapidly converge, Congress is rewriting U.S.
telecommunications laws and deregulating broadband connectivity,
which is largely a good thing. But in a country where most citizens
have only one or two viable broadband options, there are real
dangers for the Internet: Should network operators be able to block
their customers from reaching competing websites and services (such
as Internet voice calls and video-on-demand)? Should they be able
to speed up their own sites and services, while degrading those
offered by competitors? Should an innovator with a new online
service or application be forced to get permission from each
broadband cable and DSL provider before rolling it out? Or, if
that’s not blunt enough for you, what’s better: [a] Centralized
control by network operators, or [b] free user choice on the
decentralized, open, and astoundingly successful end-to-end
Internet? (Hint: It’s not [a].)

Copyrights and fair use.
Google believes in protecting copyrights while maintaining strong,
viable fair use rights in this new digital age. We support efforts
by the U.S. Copyright Office to facilitate the use of orphan works
(works whose rights-holders can’t be found), while fully respecting
the interests of creators. We applauded the Supreme Court’s
carefully calibrated decision in the href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-480.pdf" >Grokster
case, but href="http://www.netcoalition.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={39C7921D-0158-4734-A981-47FABDF24742}" >
worked to defeat href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2560:" >legislation
that would have created new forms of liability for neutral
technologies and services like Google.

Intermediary liability. As
a search engine, Google crawls the Internet, gathering information
everywhere we can find it. We’re a neutral tool that allows users
to find information posted by others – like a continuously updated
table of contents for the Internet. Not surprisingly, we don’t
believe the Internet works well if intermediaries and ISPs are held
liable for things created by others but made searchable through us.
That’s why Google will continue to oppose efforts to force us to
block or limit lawful speech; instead, we focus on providing users
the information, tools, and features (such as href="http://www.google.com/help/customize.html#safe" >SafeSearch)
they need to protect themselves online.

This is just a taste. We’re also engaged in policy debates over
privacy and spyware, trademark dilution, patent law reform,
voice-over-Internet-protocol (VOIP) regulation, and more. The
Internet policy world is fluid, so our priorities will surely morph
over time. And, of course, Google is a global company. In a future
post, we’ll introduce you to some of the policy issues we’re
confronting outside the U.S.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Copyright © 2007 Google Adsense College.
Powered by GoogleSchool. All Rights Reserved.