Google, which has been a leading defender of net neutrality over the years, is now, along with Verizon, leading the attack on net neutrality. Today, while reading through old posts on Slashdot, I discovered that Google published a terribly misleading weblog post on the subject over at their Public Policy Blog.

Google's post was written in a MYTH/FACT framework, but nearly all of the "facts" seem to validate, instead of contradict, the "myths." This is an attempt at explaining that post, which was designed to obfuscate Google's reversal.

Google wiggles around the facts

MYTH: Google has “sold out” on network neutrality.

FACT: [...] given political realities [...] we decided to partner with a major broadband provider on the best policy solution we could devise together. We’re not saying this solution is perfect, but [...]

Net neutrality is like a light with an on/off switch. The Internet either is neutral or it isn't. Once certain web sites/applications/services are prioritized over others, there is no more net neutrality. When Google gave in in to "political realities" it "sold out" on net neutrality.

But I don't believe Google (and you shouldn't either) when they say that political realities -- whatever those are -- forced their hand. There is a simpler answer, touched on below: Google stands to make a lot of money under the anti-neutrality framework it is now advocating.

MYTH: This proposal represents a step backwards for the open Internet.

FACT: [...] Here are some of the tangible benefits in our joint legislative proposal:

• Prohibitions against blocking or degrading wireline Internet traffic
• Prohibition against discriminating against wireline Internet traffic in ways that harm users or competition
• Presumption against all forms of prioritizing wireline Internet traffic
• [...]

The curious term "wireline Internet" is key to understanding what is happening here. Google's proposal is to only have legal protections for net neutrality on the wireline Internet, despite (actually, due to) the fact that wireless connections are the future of the Internet. Which leads us to:

MYTH: This proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless.

FACT: [...] It’s true that Google previously has advocated for certain openness safeguards to be applied in a similar fashion to what would be applied to wireline services. However, in the spirit of compromise, [Ted's note: selling out] we have agreed to a proposal that allows this market to remain free from regulation for now, while Congress keeps a watchful eye.

What does it mean to allow "this market to remain free from regulation?" That there will be no rules enforcing net neutrality over wireless Internet. Is this eliminating net neutrality over wireless? Yes, unless telecommunications companies do the right thing, instead of the profitable thing. So, yes.

MYTH: This proposal will allow broadband providers to “cannibalize” the public Internet.

FACT: Another aspect of the joint proposal would allow broadband providers to offer certain specialized services to customers, services which are not part of the Internet. So, for example, broadband providers could offer a special gaming channel, or a more secure banking service, or a home health monitoring capability – so long as such offerings are separate and apart from the public Internet. Some broadband providers already offer these types of services today. The chief challenge is to let consumers benefit from these non-Internet services, without allowing them to impede on the Internet itself. [emphasis added]

There is one Internet, not many Internets. Google simply made up a couple new terms: "public Internet" and "non-Internet services" to describe the part of the Internet they don't care about and the part they want to control, respectively. Under the Google/Verizon proposal, telecommunications companies will be able to prioritize their offerings above, say, the Center for Torture Accountability. Does this change the Internet? Yes; it gives large corporations more control. Does it cannibalize the public Internet? I build web applications for a living and I have no idea what the term "public Internet" even means. Does it cannibalize the Internet? Yes.

MYTH: Google is working with Verizon on this because of Android.

FACT: This is a policy proposal – not a business deal. Of course, Google has a close business relationship with Verizon, but ultimately this proposal has nothing to do with Android. Folks certainly should not be surprised by the announcement of this proposal, given our prior public policy work with Verizon on network neutrality, going back to our October 2009 blog post, our January 2010 joint FCC filing, and our April 2010 op-ed.

Google and Verizon's partnership on Android actually slightly pre-dates the October 2009 weblog post they reference, not that it matters. Even if the corporate executives at Google were thinking about destroying net neutrality before they knew who they would partner with on Android, they still knew they were going to partner with someone and then destroy net neutrality. Dropping early hints wouldn't have made it less egregious. But they didn't even do that.

MYTH: Two corporations are legislating the future of the Internet.

FACT: [...] We’re simply trying to offer a proposal to help resolve a debate which has largely stagnated after five years.

Ignoring the fact that those five years have been five years of net neutrality, all they did was change the words "legislating the future of the Internet" to "help resolve a debate."

Google ended the post by saying that they "hope this helps address some of the inaccuracies that have appeared about our proposal." But all of the or myths are actually true. How do I know? Because Google published a list of facts to support each one.

Google is a typical corporation and will do evil, if evil is profitable

When Google was not a telecommunications company it was for net neutrality and the telecommunications companies were against it. Morally, Google was on the right side of the issue but it was only there because it stood to make a lot of money on the right side of the issue.

Today, Google is a telecommunications company and it is now against net neutrality, and the public interest. Why? Because it now stands to make a lot of money on the wrong side of the issue.

Google to Stop Censoring Search Results in China. About time.

Google's behavior has been devastating to human rights in China and this is a much-needed and long overdue about-face. This comes late, but it could matter a lot. The fall-out from this will play a large role in determining the future scope of the Chinese government's control of the Chinese internet.