Compromise does not sit well with idealistic principles. So really, Google has little cause to feel mistreated over the very negative reaction to its net neutrality pact with Verizon (from public interest groups, and from competitors) and its latest blog post today sounds highly defensive.
It’s just naive to assume that an agreement like this between two giant companies will not be seen as an attempt to carve up a market. After all, companies are meant to negotiate in their own self-interest. So if the two leaders in their respective markets can reach a mutually agreed compromise, it stands to reason that the position they arrive at will advocate regulation where it is least likely to affect them directly – and greater freedoms where they most want them.
That has led to an inevitable focus on the wireless internet, which Google and Verizon would like to see remain unregulated. Given their successful partnership over Android smartphones, it also raises an inevitable question about where their interests in this market intersect. The response in today’s blog post:
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.
Policy positions, however, do not come from thin air, they reflect the current realities of business. That, at least, is the message from the change of stance Google has taken with the Verizon pact. Compromise is not necessarily bad – but for an image-conscious Google, its consequences may take some time to get used to.
