This site is closed to new comments and posts.

Notice: This site uses cookies to function.
If you are not comfortable with cookies then please don't browse this website.

google becoming the evil company. ending net neutrality — Brooklynian

google becoming the evil company. ending net neutrality

armchair_warrior
armchair_warrior
edited November -1 in Brooklyn Politics
do no evil my butt, they are bunch of hypocrites. they censor searches in some countries and let the government peek in others and in china they wouldn't do this cause they believe they were doing evil. yet now this bull shit.




Google and Verizon 'near deal to end net neutrality'

Search giant said to be close to agreeing a deal that would let the telecoms company prioritise categories of online content

Eric Schmidt Google CEO Eric Schmidt said in February that ending net neutrality 'would not be seen as fair'. Photograph: Paul Sakuma/AP

The internet giants Google and Verizon are reportedly close to a deal that could bring an end to "net neutrality", allowing the telecoms company to prioritise the order and speed in which it delivers content to users.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/aug/05/google-verizon-net-neutrality

Comments

  • boygabriel
    boygabriel
    I'm confused, what role does google have in whether or not the ISP's do this?
  • armchair_warrior
    armchair_warrior
    google control most of the market for searches and vids.

    say if they made this deal, they could give verizon users depends on what their contract with them is. faster downloads of stuff from google searches and piping it back to them faster than some other company.

    hell they can even tier it further for verizon users themselves. those who pay a premium say fios vs dsl. those who pay verizon more gets faster dl vs those who pay less from google.


    right now google is sending the results back to all its customers at max speed. once it gets tiered. they'll send it back at what ever the agreement is.
  • boygabriel
    boygabriel
    I didn't know google could/would control search results and speeds on their sites. I thought that was mostly on the ISPs.

    if they do this I will stop using my gmail stuff immediately.
  • jeffrey
    jeffrey
    On a tangential note, they just killed their Google Wave social lifestream project.

    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2367423,00.asp
  • armchair_warrior
    armchair_warrior
    they are a big company once they do this, all the smaller ones will follow and we are screwed depends on the company we use and how much we pay.

    right now it takes two to tango. the isp and the content providers.

    isp limits your speeds to what ever you pay for. content providers generally spend it back fast as they can on their ability and they don't care on which isp you use and where you are from.
  • whynot_31
    whynot_31
    There was an article in todays NYT about how they are going to pay ISPs to optimize content.

    This in turn would cause ISPs to charge consumers for such optimization.

    (google, of course, would be paid by the folks that wanted tehir content optimized).

    ....while perhaps being "evil", it would prevent the content creators from having to go to each ISP. Googel would do the dirty work for them, and make lost of $ in the process.

    Some view it as the level playing field coming to an end, others state "why shouldn't I be able to get premium service? I have money"
  • boygabriel
    boygabriel
    jeffrey wrote: On a tangential note, they just killed their Google Wave social lifestream project.

    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2367423,00.asp
    google wave was a disaster, and I immediately regretted signing up for it.

    I tried to do one project on it with other people off-site and so many things went wrong.
  • armchair_warrior
    armchair_warrior
    right now i download stuff from anime site, they have two tier.

    you pay a premium you get unlimited downloads and speeds are faster.
    or their free stuff, you get 15 mins between each download and speeds aren't that fast.

    some websites have done this for years, normally they are smaller sites etc..

    but big sites like google probably made some deals where they get shared revenue like cable or satellite guys on tv channels from verizon.

    once this is done all the big guys and small guys want deals with the isp and they all get a cut of the money. end user is screwed cause than we have all pay more for our lines.

    it would become like cable and satellite.
  • jeffrey
    jeffrey
    Just to repost the significance of this:
    Carnivore wrote:

    Al Franken is awesome.
  • jeffrey
    jeffrey
    Boygabriel wrote: [quote=jeffrey]On a tangential note, they just killed their Google Wave social lifestream project.

    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2367423,00.asp
    google wave was a disaster, and I immediately regretted signing up for it.

    I tried to do one project on it with other people off-site and so many things went wrong.

    Yes, I was in the first wave of beta testers and mentioned at the time that it totally sucked...

    No idea of context or discussions, everything lost in the rapid current of posts, total chaos. Complete, unorganized overload. A novelty, yes, but a total waste of time in a very bad way (not even a good way).

    And it never improved. Glad there is no further call to support this.
  • armchair_warrior
    armchair_warrior
    when i was younger microsoft was the evil company and apple is the good guy lol.

    now it has reversed microsoft commandant gates is now the good guy :p.
    google and apple are pure evil.
  • boygabriel
    boygabriel
    bill gates is a great guy. microsoft still blows.

    google is FAR from pure evil.
  • jeffrey
    jeffrey
    Boygabriel wrote: I'm confused, what role does google have in whether or not the ISP's do this?
    The significance of this is further out than just search.

    Google has been developing it's own next-generation national broadband network to compete with the others.

    Huge Demand for Google Ultra High-Speed Broadband
    http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/netsys/article.php/3873581/Huge-Demand-for-Google-Ultra-High-Speed-Broadband.htm
  • whynot_31
    whynot_31
    jeffrey wrote: [quote=Boygabriel]I'm confused, what role does google have in whether or not the ISP's do this?
    The significance of this is further out than just search.

    Google has been developing it's own next-generation national broadband network to compete with the others.

    Huge Demand for Google Ultra High-Speed Broadband
    http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/netsys/article.php/3873581/Huge-Demand-for-Google-Ultra-High-Speed-Broadband.htm

    It would give us speeds like that found in advanced, first world countries, that invest in infrastructure ....like South Korea.
  • boygabriel
    boygabriel
    whynot_31 wrote: It would give us speeds like that found in advanced, first world countries, tht invest in infrastructure ....like South Korea.
    Communist.

    I'd rather spend my tax dollars on unwinnable wars to protect my freedom.
  • whynot_31
    whynot_31
    South Korea is capitalist.
    .....it just has government programs that support the growth of its private sector:

    High speed trains, education, electrical grid, etc.

    It rarely provides subsidies to companies and industries in which it is not competitive. (The US has the opposite relationship with Detroit).

    I am an envy-ist, not a communist.

    ....besides, this a thread about internet speeds.
  • jeffrey
    jeffrey
    By the way, both Verizon and Google are denying these reports, saying the NY Times etc. got it all wrong.

    Google's denial:
    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2367436,00.asp
    A Google spokeswoman declined to comment on talks between her company and Verizon, but she denied a New York Times report that said the two companies were negotiating a tiered service agreement that would give Google services faster network speeds than some competitors. That story "is quite simply wrong," said Mistique Cano, manager of global communications and public affairs at Google. "We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google traffic. We remain as committed as we always have been to an open Internet."
    Verizon's denial:
    http://policyblog.verizon.com/BlogPost/740/NewYorkTimesStoryisMistaken.aspx
    Verizon Policy Blog: New York Times' Story is Mistaken
    The NYT article regarding conversations between Google and Verizon is mistaken. It fundamentally misunderstands our purpose. As we said in our earlier FCC filing, our goal is an Internet policy framework that ensures openness and accountability, and incorporates specific FCC authority, while maintaining investment and innovation. To suggest this is a business arrangement between our companies is entirely incorrect.
  • hitokiri
    hitokiri
    best to get your tech news from engadget
    http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/05/google-and-verizon-sign-net-neutrality-agreement-begin-the-end/
  • jeffrey
    jeffrey
    ...unless you want to get it sooner. :wink:
  • boygabriel
    boygabriel
    I was just kidding WN31
  • whynot_31
    whynot_31
    I can't see either Verizon or Google disclosing these converstations before a definate deal is reached.

    If my audience was internet users, I would not want to take the blame for ending something that has been free. i.e. Net Neutrality

    If, however, my audience was stockholders and firms that stood to gain as a result of being among the first to use the technology, then I would completely take credit for it.

    ...as Boygabriel points out, I'm dire hard capitalist.
  • hitokiri
    hitokiri
    jeffrey wrote: ...unless you want to get it sooner. :wink:
    and incorrectly apparently ;p
  • jeffrey
    jeffrey
    How's that?
  • whynot_31
    whynot_31
    Boygabriel wrote: I was just kidding WN31
    I'm aware. Besides, I don't view being a communist as a negative thing.

    ....they are just more utopian about the nature of human beings than I am.
    I find it impossible to believe that humans forego their own interests on behalf of the large common good.

    ...I am also a big fan of the gains obtained from Free Trade.

    ...and think that the free market should be left to handle anything it can, without unduly damaging the public. ...but I think everyone should have the rights to an education, clean air, health care etc., which unfettered capitalism has a hard time with.

    Utopian communists are much more fun to hang out with than me. On good days, I'm a Godless Keynesian, but I never achieve Godless Communist.

    In otherwords, like most people, I think Communism would be a great system if it worked. Ditto, I think Capitalism would be a great system if it could be made to work.

    When it's really hot out, I turn into a grumpy right wing capitalist. I think this is why elections are in November. ....It's cooler then, and people are in better moods.

    If we could only get rid of Human Nature. ...then either system would be work.

    Until then, it seems like Net Neutrality is toast.

    ....and Armchair seems to think Google is evil for playing a role.
  • boygabriel
    boygabriel
    It makes me sad how little of our resources are devoted to infrastructure, whether IT or transportation or anything.

    But that's America: don't tax me, but if you do, spend it on wars.
  • whynot_31
    whynot_31
    I think eggcream or modsquad should be next.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In

Categories