Google Denies Reports It Has a Deal for Packet Prioritization

Despite reports to the contrary, Google says it doesn't have a deal with Verizon on "network neutrality" that includes packet prioritization, much less paid-for prioritization, Multichannel News reports.


"We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google or YouTube traffic," said Google spokesperson Mistique Cano. "The New York Times piece is quite simply wrong."

"The NYT article regarding conversations between Google and Verizon is mistaken," said Verizon spokesman David Fish. "To suggest this is a business arrangement between our companies is entirely incorrect."

The original reporting from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg had suggested agreement on a framework that would have included both "best effort" and "prioritized" services.

All we can say at this point is that the extensive talks between Google and Verizon Wireless will bear fruit. Each company has too much to gain, and much to lose, if the two parties cannot compromise on packet prioritization in ways that allow both firms to move forward.

Each has investors to persuade, at the very least, and both face a more-uncertain framework as the Federal Communications Commission proceeds with its network neutrality proceeding, as that process seems largely deadlocked on the important issues.

Google's Failures are a Good Thing

Many management consultants would say that the typical company learns faster when it tries new things faster, accelerating the rate at which it can sort the good ideas from the bad.

Few firms actually practice what the consultants preach very well. Failure still gets punished, and the bigger the failure the bigger the punishment. Google is among the firms that fail fast and frequently, and that is a good thing. The faster it sorts through initiatives that don't work, the faster it will stumble upon the good ideas.

Though people tend to remember the successes and forget the failures, given a sufficient passage of time, both Apple and Google have failed at some initiatives, in Google's case many initiatives.

That's a good thing, not a bad thing. Google is set up so that failure is not dangerous to the company's core business. That isn't always the case at other firms.

Some will defend a slower pace of trial and error precisely for that reason: some firms cannot handle a major failure as they experiment. That is one reason why it is good to have a platform that allows frequent innovations to be tested, at low or reasonable cost.

In a business where good ideas have to be discovered, there is almost no way around experimentation and failure. Companies simply need to improve their prototyping and testing processes, with the caveat that some companies (software firms, especially) have inherent advantages in that regard, and always will. That's why much, perhaps most, meaningful innovation now comes in businesses that are driven by software.

Google doesn't so much fail as experiment faster, and more frequently, than most companies can.

200,000 Android Activations a Day; 1.4 Million a Week; 5.6 Million a Month

You bet Android devices in use are growing fast. Eric Schmidt, Google CEO, says 200,000 Android devices are activated every day. Do the math: that's 5.6 million a month. If you are a platform supplier, or building a business on a platform, those are big numbers.

Are Mobile App Store Efforts Damaging Handset Makers?

The conventional widsom, which is not to say the conventional wisdom is wrong, is that application richness is a key driver of value for handset brands. But are handset vendors, in general, making a mistake pouring resources into mobile app stores? Some think so.

Acoording to the "MEX Handset Industry Insight" service, since 2007, the combined average annual profit margin of the five major handset manunfacturers (Nokia, Samsung, LG, Motorola and Sony Ericsson) has fallen from 12.5 percent to 6.3 percent in 2009.

In the second quarter of 2010, margin dipped yet again, reaching 5.3 percent. In real terms, this means the total combined profit made by these five companies has fallen from about $15.1 billion in 2007 to $5.8 billion in 2009.

In other words, as important as the mobile app stores might be, the handset vendors largely cannot afford to support them.

The other part of conventional wisdom is that service providers cannot create or maintain such mobile app store initiatives as well as handset suppliers. In the long term, that might not prove correct.

If margin pressures force the app stores to be divested, among the logical buyers are the service providers, or at least some third-party entities owned collectively by service providers. People might say it is hard to do so, as rivalries between service providers are too fierce. That is true, at least in principle.

But a recent agreement by AT&T, Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile USA to collaborate on a new mobile payment business is evidence that given a big enough carrot, or a big enough stick, cooperation is possible.

MEX - the strategy forum for mobile user experience

1/3 of Top-Trending Search Topics Return Malicious Results, Norton Finds

More than one in three of the top-trending search terms returned at least 10 percent malicious results, a new Norton study finds. Those results obviously point out the dangers of cybercrime.

Between February and May, “tropical dreams sweepstakes” and “red hot laugh riot” searches could have returned 99 malicious links out of the first 100 results, Norton says.

One in Three Top-Trending Search Topics Return Malicious Results, Finds Norton Study

Google and Verizon Net Neutrality Agreement Might Allow Application Priorities?

To add yet another nuance to the reported network neutrality agreement Google and Verizon are said to be near, the New York Times reports that the deal will allow Verizon to to offer paid application prioritization.

The charges could be paid by companies, like YouTube, owned by Google, for example, to Verizon, one of the nation’s leading Internet service providers, to ensure that its content received priority as it made its way to consumers, the New York Times reports.

Presumably that would be possible only if all application providers were allowed to pay for the assured quality of service, and presumably Google would want to ensure that no application provider got a price advantage. In other words, Verizon would be allowed to offer video prioritization services, so long as all video application providers were able to get the same priority treatment.

The deal apparently is still in the works, so the confusion about the general outlines is understandable. So far, one version of the story is that there will be no prioritization allowed, at least on Verizon's fixed network. Another version is that prioritization is allowable, so long as all application providers within an application class get the same expedited treatment.

The New York Times version seems to suggest application-related priorities are permissible, and that providers could pay to get such treatment, but not that every video, voice, gaming, conferencing or other latency-sensitive app automatically will get such treatment.

Google and Verizon in Talks on Selling Internet Priority - NYTimes.com

Verizon, Google Net Neutrality Agreement?

A slightly different take on what Google and Verizon might have agreed on, as far as network neutrality rules, is offered by Washington Post writer Cecelia Kang.

As Kang describes the reported agreement, Verizon would refrain from offering paid prioritization to the biggest bidders for capacity on its DSL and fiber networks, essentially preserving a "best effort" access regime.

But Google and Verizon apparently also agreed that both could live with assured access tiers of service designed to optimize the performance of voice, video, conferencing, gaming or other services that are latency sensitive, at least on wireline networks.

Kang says the agreement does not cover wired networks.

Post Tech - Verizon, Google make net neutrality pact