Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Lt Gen Panda
17115 Followers
Jovan Maric
817 Followers
Carly Wilson
3025 Followers
Josh Q. Public
215 Followers
Art Thou Bored
2898 Followers
AngelWardriver
11955 Followers
bonesehAug 17, 2010
Glad to see those statements!
factsahoyAug 18, 2010
From a whopping four people, who already were on the right side?
NOT ENOUGH.
swift2Aug 18, 2010
The point about the reform, which won't take full effect until 2014, is that you WON'T be tied to your employer in the same way you are now. Why it stayed with the employer? Because the specter of Canadian communism fwightened Americans. Hell, the Democrats were fighting a tide that made fictional "death panels" an actual controversy.
homercles337Aug 18, 2010
Just remember who is on your side when you vote this November. Lots of "Ds" there. That being said if an "R" supported net neutrality s/he would have as much of my vote as a D.
jgregcAug 17, 2010
Google trying to get their stuff priority early - they must know which way the winds are blowing... But I still don't like it!
paperclipsnsoupAug 17, 2010
Google's slogan is "Don't be Evil"
Now it's seeming more and more like "Don't be Evil (Unless it's profitable)"
alienmushroomAug 18, 2010
See how capitalism is turning every good company into blood sucking parasites.
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
And the alternative is?
alienmushroomAug 18, 2010
Communism, which is based on needs, not greed.
evildeadashAug 19, 2010
When are you retards going to get a clue and realize that EVERY economic system and form of government are corruptible? Even your precious communism.
dsmxAug 18, 2010
Did anyone expect anything else to happen when they got shareholders?
staticfireAug 18, 2010
Thats what it's been since they agreed to censor s**t in China.
luckyscsAug 18, 2010
Idn I kinda like being a shareholder in a profitable company...
s73v3rAug 18, 2010
Yeah, but for the longest time, they were profitable AND ethical. Now they're forsaking the later for the former.
hotrats76Aug 18, 2010
IDK, because I don't now makes not sense in the context of your sentence..
fungowskiAug 18, 2010
It's as though you are expecting the coptic eye to emerge from the google logo as they reveal the sinister second phase of their business plan.
I'm looking at the corporate landscape. Knowing that some entity will seize control over the internet, why not let it be Google. I'm not saying Google is looking out for our best interests but out of all the mega corps out there they're definitely one of the least offensive. I mean they have a suite of free products most of us use on a daily basis. They figured out how to make money without raping their employees or the environment. I don't know, they don't really seem that bad.
hurricanedcAug 18, 2010
I get what you're saying, but sadly it basically means "better to be beaten up by a gang of thugs than to be waterboarded and then slowly tortured to within an inch of your life."
thufirrhawatAug 18, 2010
"In this possibly terminal phase of human existence, democracy and freedom are more than just ideals to be valued - they may be essential to survival." - Noam Chomsky
rotzooiAug 18, 2010
And let's add to that, "please don't adopt Apple's infantilization philosophy".
The new (month-old or so) Google News sucks balls. I don't want to have to tell Google if I "never, sometimes or often" read stories about "celebrity, business, sports" etc etc.
I just want an overview of the US's and world's news, that's it. No MySpace s**t.
staticfireAug 20, 2010
I use to love reading Google news till they changed it. Now it sucks and everything is all over the place.
hotrats76Aug 18, 2010
But but, android is open source, this should balance things out for google
tntbassAug 18, 2010
Every single corporation's first priority is to make money for the shareholders.
Sooner or later the innovation will start to decline. Sure, they'll still innovate, but unless those new inventions can be monetized quickly, they won't be as likely to be available out to the public.
Why is Google pushing for a lack of neutrality on mobile, but not on the wire line business? Because Google has a lot of resources tied into mobility now. With Android gaining popularity every day, Google has started to put into place their bigger picture of what the mobile industry will become, with Google being the major player. If they can protect against Net Neutrality on the mobile spectrum right now, they stand to gain huge in the future.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kyanAug 18, 2010
So, you're saying GOOG is a "buy"?
tbobesAug 18, 2010
That still doesn't describe why they are pushing for net neutrality on the wired side of things. They are way more invested into that portion of the market than the mobile phone portion. In the original letter I remember seeing that the reasoning for the lack of net neutrality on mobile phones was to ease up on the amount of stress their infrastructure is taking from the smart phone surge. That might just be a bunch of bs, but it would make sense.
revchris2Aug 18, 2010
Or if Lionel Hutz wrote their slogan "Don't , Be Evil!"
xtremesisu13Aug 18, 2010
seems like Google's slogan is becoming more and more similar to Fox's "Fair and Balanced"
mxm111Aug 18, 2010
Just remember, that for most corporations, Google including, "Evil = not making tons of money"
paperclipsnsoupAug 18, 2010
I don't know... BP had a great run.
You think the BP's CEOs really care about the public welfare? Naw, they're probably sitting at one of their many homes being served by hired help and thinking about their billions of dollars.
Closed AccountAug 17, 2010
Congress will say that to calm the sheep, not do anything about it, take some money from those companies and slowly allow it to happen. Rinse Repeat.
It is the same with everything else in this country. Greed controls.
shroomtimeAug 17, 2010
I've been saying this for the past year and I'll say it again. f**k Google.
lemonseamonkeyAug 18, 2010
Trust me, you can say that about nearly every corporation out there right now. Sucks when you have to look for the lesser of two evils. It's just like politics
robdazombaAug 18, 2010
But at least other companies don't hide behind disingenuous ideals like "don't be evil."
So, yeah, you're right. Most companies are a big pile of suck, but what Google's doing is putting a little extra dollop of bulls**t on top.
darkshroudAug 18, 2010
Microsoft is now the least evil of the big tech companies and not once have they ever hidden behind BS catch phrases like "Don't be evil." To MS business is simply business.
fungowskiAug 18, 2010
Eh they ain't that bad. One of the top stories on my google news page today was "Top lawmakers slam Google-Verizon 'net neut' scheme" What company in the entire history of companies would allow something like that anywhere on their website? What news entity in the history of news has ran a story bashing itself on the front page? That kind of stuff gives me a little more faith in them as opposed to a company like microsoft or apple that attempt to bury any negative press. Can you imagine apple running an editorial that criticized the iphone antenna problems? Unthinkable!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
1platypusAug 18, 2010
you obviously don't understand how Google news works... do you.
fungowskiAug 18, 2010
good point, because google wrote the algorithm to pull the news but there's no way they would be able to filter or water it down in their favor if they wanted to.
robdazombaAug 18, 2010
"What company in the entire history of companies would allow something like that anywhere on their website?"
Oh gosh, you're right! That makes this all totally cool.
BTW, the logical fallacy you're trying to pull off here is called "associative fallacy." You're trying to make Google's attack on Net neutrality look harmless because they're such a kind-hearted company that they allow a site they run to post articles critical of their behavior.
That's very simplistic thinking and not all of us are going to fall for it.
fungowskiAug 18, 2010
i guess your logical fallacy then is... poisoning the well? I'll have to get my nerd handbook to figure it out. Because I was actually responding to the fact that the guy said "f**k google" and has been apparently saying it for a year now. I said nothing at all about their plans with verizon.
haleonearthAug 18, 2010
Sing it again Sam!
pdusk44Aug 18, 2010
Why all of this f**k google? Do you not like them because they single handily took on the Chinese government in a battle of censorship? Is it because of all of there new and innovative products that they give to consumers for free? Is it because they want to roll out a 1 Gbit internet service which according to there own proposal they can not throttle or control. This is way more complicated than most people realize. I am not for the proposal at all but google is a great company it is not there fault that they themselves are trying to solve ALL of the worlds problems.
matzahmanAug 18, 2010
Haven't heard any republican objections to this yet...
dauntless1Aug 18, 2010
Especially since McCain has run some airtime about how Net Neutrality is actually going to silence conservatives on the internet. Couldn't believe that s**t. Then I saw who was backing him on it. Guess who? That's right, good old AT&T, biggest proponent of metered internet and bandwidth throttling out there. Surprise surprise right?
savethemindAug 18, 2010
why the f**k does mccain talk about the internet when he can't even use a f**king computer ?
dauntless1Aug 18, 2010
@savethemind
I'll give you a hint, it starts (and probably ends) with "money".
See if you can crack my code. You might be awhile, I'm like the goddamn Riddler.
stillhateyouAug 18, 2010
Net Neutrality has been in serious trouble even without the Republicans having control of either house of Congress. The possibility of Republican gains just makes the situation even more dire. See:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/net-neutrality-throttle/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/25/74_democrats_defy_genachowski/
Look, you guys can blame Google all you want for what they did, but if they hadn't done that, we would all get shafted even harder.
StrutThatAssAug 18, 2010
Google will tell net neutrality to f**k off.
netneutralityAug 18, 2010
Don't worry, I've been telling Google to f**k off ever since Buzz.
andrucAug 18, 2010
I'm curious; how would this proposed plan affect Internet users outside of the United States?
dauntless1Aug 18, 2010
Allowing companies to dictate neutrality would still screw over anyone trying to access a network hosted in the US.
So, still a bad thing even if you don't live here.
codelogicAug 18, 2010
"Allowing companies to dictate neutrality would still screw over anyone trying to access a network hosted in the US."
You do realize that the proposal submitted by Google and Verizon recommended giving FCC the authority to regulate right? From my understanding, here are some points to note:
1. There is NO net neutrality today in US, the ISPs are free shape / block traffic however they see fit (which they do, eg: Comcast and BitTorrent).
2. There would STILL be no talk of net neutrality had this proposal not been submitted.
3. The proposal enforces net neutrality on wired connections (and no, QoS is not a violation of net neutrality, it is a required for optimal usage of a network bandwidth, and is very much in use in most routers today). Time Warner, an ISP that primarily serves wired accounts, isn't happy with the proposal (no surprise).
4. The proposal _currently_ omits wireless but doesn't say anything suggesting that similar enforcements cannot be enforced in the future (or even right now if the FCC decides to). The reality is wireless bandwidth (GPRS, 3G, 4G, etc) is far more scarce than wired. Given that voice data is also transmitted on some of these frequencies, it is reasonable to expect carriers to prioritize different types of traffic which could result in degraded Internet speed etc. A perfect example is AT&T congestion in cities like NYC and San Francisco since iPhone launch.
5. It is also conceivable that once the infrastructure is in place for higher bandwidth wireless Internet access (LTE perhaps and other related technologies) that FCC or whoever can give the carriers a deadline to start following similar net neutrality requirements.
Lot of this outcry is just handwaving and FUD, the matter of the fact is that some net neutrality is still better than no net neutrality, which is where we are today. Given that this proposal doesn't exclude future, more rigorous requirements, I think it is at least a workable first step. In fact that's all it is, a PROPOSAL for the first step towards net neutrality.
docholiday22Aug 18, 2010
Agreed. I always thought net neutrality was an illusion, especially when Google was concerned.
fountaindewAug 18, 2010
@codelogic: Could you post your source?
thatmarksguyAug 18, 2010
You know that message you get when you try to watch a video from a network that's not on your country/provider? That could multiply tenfold if they're allowed to get their way. How dare (insert foreign ISP) try to get a "free ride" by peering so that their customers in another country can use Facebook? Make them pay! (All the wile making Facebook pay to get to you). Also at the same time facebook pays for their internet presence and you pay (yet again on top of your ISP bill) to get access to Facebook.
prokidAug 18, 2010
WTF G
timedalkatAug 18, 2010
There are 73 Democrats in congress that need to know they made a mistake opposing Net Neutrality.
Now would be a good time to let them know how you feel.
heynow21Aug 18, 2010
If you don't have any money to give them there's probably not much point.
armedrebelAug 18, 2010
Are you trying to say vote them out? Like a republican will be any better.
iamacyborgAug 18, 2010
The solution is less government, not more. In Somalia, they have at least 12 major wireless carriers, all of whom have to claw over each other to appeal to consumer demand for their services.
If we had that kind of free competition in the U.S., certainly there would be a major market for providing traffic agnostic internet services since clearly there is a lot of consumer demand for it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
factsahoyAug 18, 2010
Most people are too ignorant to know WTF Net neutrality is, or detect when they're being denied it.
gregatron5000Aug 18, 2010
It's a shame that most people didn't get your sarcasm. Somalia. Nice.
iamacyborgAug 18, 2010
Somalia has nearly (if not the) best communications services in sub-Saharan Africa. It's about 3 days to get a phone line hooked up versus months in some of the neighbouring states.
There was an article in Forbes about it, look it up.
The problem with "Somalia" references is that most people inappropriately compare it to the United States instead of neighbouring states.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hardwalkerAug 18, 2010
LOL aw man, he's like the next cobert
iamacyborgAug 18, 2010
Facts are inconvenient!
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
google isnt even a wireless carrier...
verizon is a wireless carrier but is also one of the most expensive... we have dozens more to choose from that cost much less and give much more than verizon in a bid to appeal to consumer demand for lower cost
america is a hell of a lot bigger than somalia.... we have tons of localized wireless carriers that you might never hear of because you do not live in the area.... we have many, many more wireless choices than those who live in somalia... we also enjoy feeling safe walking down the road...
"If we had that kind of free competition in the U.S." WE DO! are you that ignorant?
iamacyborgAug 18, 2010
First,
You can't compare Somalia to the U.S.A., it's stupid. Compare them to other sub-Saharan African countries.
Second,
Browse through this site for a few minutes and then tell me the U.S. has a free market in communications.
http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/cfrassemble.cgi?title=200947
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
dude.. you just compared somalia to the us.... second, i can currently get service from 14 different carriers where i live... which is in southeast mass in the woods.....
if any other wireless companies want to start up, they can and they do.... it IS a free market... just because companies fail and others wildly succeed doesnt mean its not a free market...
s73v3rAug 18, 2010
It still does take buttloads of money to get in the game. So that is a pretty big barrier to entry.
novogradacAug 18, 2010
F@CK THE RIAA!
atarioAug 18, 2010
How does one fatck?
unic0rnAug 18, 2010
F**K THE GOOGLE
gettempapaAug 18, 2010
Dugg for Jim Carrey.
everlast88Aug 18, 2010
Dugg for Jack Black cameo.
weirddaveAug 18, 2010
f**k Jim Carrey. He's an anti-vaccine idiot whose influence has helped cause the death of innocent children.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/04/23/jim-carrey-loves-the-pro-disease-movement/
dusanmalAug 18, 2010
Markey said, "No private interest should be permitted to carve up the Internet to suit its own purposes."
now if our servants at Congress would just take a moment and include the same type of statement for Govt./FCC, ex.
"No Govt. agency should be permitted to control the Internet to suit its own purposes"
one could say that we have reached the important step. So far - NO. You want bi-partisan support and true NetNeutrality, urge your representatives to create simple law containing negative rights for Business and Government regarding all Internet traffic. As inspired by Constitutional rights. Banning control by both FCC or Businesses.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
neutron7Aug 18, 2010
Your servants? hahahahaha when was the last time you made a million dollar "donation" ?
catalysisAug 18, 2010
Then who enforces the law? You haven't thought this all the way through, have you?
shauncorleoneAug 18, 2010
"Then who enforces your new law?"
The Supreme Court
catalysisAug 18, 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
shauncorleoneAug 19, 2010
Your point? The Legislative branch drafts legislation, passes it. It is signed into law by the head of the executive branch. Any transgressions of the law are brought before the judicial branch.
writebAug 18, 2010
Will somebody who actually read the freaking proposal please weigh in? I understand it will take you more than 4 minutes, but still. Misinformation has got everybody WAY off message here. It all started with the backwards ass leaks destroying any chance of constructive review of the proposal.
The most contentious part is with regard to Wireless carriers being able to throttle bandwidth on their networks (WHICH THEY ALREADY DO), except with more appropriate transparent disclosure requirements. People need to calm the hell down and realize you're going to need to make some concessions to get remotely anything agreed upon by carriers and passed by congress. Google considered this a concession as there's more wireless competition in the space and there's a better chance of the market determining this policy.
The policy proposed for the handful of hard wire providers is pretty rock solid.
cubicledroneAug 18, 2010
"and realize you're going to need to make some concessions to get remotely anything agreed upon by carriers and passed by congress"
False dilemma. The answer to this "you're gonna have to surrender" s**t is "no."
The Internet doesn't belong to the carriers. They don't get a vote. They operate their businesses at the pleasure of the people, who paid for the Internet to be built in the first place. The Internet is a public resource: no different from the public airwaves, and it will be treated as such.
When AT&T returns the $200 billion it took to build infrastructure, we'll listen. Until then, the people decide, and the people have decided that net neutrality is the way it's going to be.
writebAug 18, 2010
"The Internet doesn't belong to the carriers. They don't get a vote"
False assumption. The proposition (let alone premise) that the infrastructure of "the internet" belongs "to the people" is as laughable as it is unconceivable outside of the US border. (Mind you, that's just a small dimension of the fallacy of your argument). Combine that with a nebulous construct of "The internet" and you have muddied, confused arguments as yours. I want network neutrality along with the rest of the pitchfork waving spectrum, but unfettered internet access is pretty far down the totem pole as a human rights policy argument. Being practical about it isn't "surrendering" jack schitt, it's being realistic.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cubicledroneAug 18, 2010
We're not talking about outside the U.S. border. We're talking about U.S. law for U.S. networks used by Americans. That's also what Google and Verizon are talking about, so let's dial back the red herrings and keep our eye on the ball.
"I want network neutrality along with the rest of the pitchfork waving spectrum"
Lighten up on the pitchfork s**t, chunky. Until a month ago, Google was leading the net neutrality parade.
"but unfettered internet access is pretty far down the totem pole as a human rights policy argument."
As of last week, it's #1 on the hit parade.
"Being practical about it isn't "surrendering""
You don't get to just claim the word "practical" or the word "realistic." There's nothing practical or realistic about allowing either wireless or wired networks to become overpriced television channels. The web belongs to its users. Google and Verizon can either be good citizens of the web or they can GTFO. Case closed.
writebAug 18, 2010
Red herring? The proposition that "the internet" is a guaranteed right is just as "guaranteed" as a telephone line, automobile, or.... wait for it, cable television. Don't flippantly compound the freedom of speech with some imagined right to T1 lines for everyone. You, sir haven't read the original proposal either. (You'll be hard pressed to find any outlet properly linking to it.) You've anchored everything you know about network neutrality on that corny ass info graphic of what "Cable'ized" internet would look like. It's certainly served it's purpose, but that's not the issue with this proposal at all, despite what less informed folks are writing.
I'm as left leaning as the rest of 'em, but you're walking pretty closely with socialized telephone/internet access, which I'm all but positive we don't want. The FCC can't do crap, and Congress obviously isn't doing anything. This proposal is a reasonable start to a market driven solution.
Believe it or not, I think Google actually wins in this fiasco; Everything about their business model benefits from an open, un-tiered internet, and with doofuses like yourself parroting far left policy, it strengthens Google's hand in negotiations since it looks like they're sacrificing far more in their compromise. You can be part of the solution, or you can go back to dialup. "Case closed."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cubicledroneAug 18, 2010
I didn't say it was a right. I said we own the Internet, and we do. It's a public resource. Our tax dollars paid for it. We built everything that's on it. It's ours.
"but you're walking pretty closely with socialized telephone/internet access, which I'm all but positive we don't want"
Oh, so now we're all socialists because we won't allow two private companies to take something that doesn't belong to them and sell it.
"far left policy"
There's nothing "right" or "left" about this. This is about simple fairness and the right of the people of this nation to protect our public resources. The Internet belongs to the people who built it, not private companies.
starlessknightAug 18, 2010
writeb: with doofuses like yourself parroting far left policy
cubicledrone: There's nothing "right" or "left" about this.
Mm, I think you were being too nice, cubicledrone. People that start ranting and raving about how people their talking with are nothing but mindless drones prattling about the "far left" or "far right" agenda don't have the mentality wherewithal to comprehend an opposing argument critically. The only people that use "far left" and "far right" to insult, demean, and undermine others (often because they have nothing of any real value to contribute otherwise and simply want to get a blind "Hell yeah" from their parroting audience) are opinionated jackasses with their own TV show telling people what to think.
Debate the issue on facts, not political football playbooks and meaningless jargon.
frakkinbastardAug 18, 2010
"I said we own the Internet, and we do. It's a public resource. Our tax dollars paid for it. We built everything that's on it. It's ours."
Your tax dollars paid for railroads, powerlines and telephone lines. Are they yours? No. they belong to private enteprises.
Your tax dollars paid for aircraft carriers, tanks and fighter planes. Are they yours? No. You can't even decide how they're used.
Unless you have a big enough wallet, you're completely irrelevant and your stance is laughable.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cubicledroneAug 19, 2010
"Your tax dollars paid for railroads, powerlines and telephone lines. Are they yours?"
As a matter of fact, they are. All three of those industries are regulated in the public interest. Telephone lines in particular have been a regulatory battleground for 80 years, and have required enemas on many occasions to reduce the monopolistic s**t level in the interests of better service at reasonable prices.
We decide how the military is governed every two years.
Economic value is not measured in wallets. The Internet's users have spoken. Net Neutrality is what they want.
angelbunnyAug 18, 2010
I've read a good amount and unfortunately, the more I read the more confused I become.
Taking a couple of steps back:
Both google and verizon are huge proponents of net neutrality while AT&T is the complete opposite.
When comcrap did the sandvine thing the FCC came down on them hard. Then a ruling came out saying the FCC has no power to regulate for pro or against net neutrality.
Google and verizon saw this and got involved trying to push a law forcing net neutrality. If the FCC can't do s**t then who can?
In response to this statements came out saying the opposite because google stated it had no intention of regulating net neutrality to cell carriers.
There are a few dems supporting google and verizon's net neutrality plans but only a few. The rest of the dems are anti or neutral because they fear a backlash from the people. It is easy for reports to say that google is anti net neutrality because they are trying to regulate the internet.
The whole thing is a mess. A lot of news stories are written based on one or two quotes and complete speculation. Also, the wording on the bill isn't exactly easy to follow. Personally, I wouldn't take out much on these news stories. They have little truth to them and a whole lotta speculation leading to
robdazombaAug 18, 2010
I **HAVE** read the goddamn thing and I still think Google and Verizon are being assh**es, except they're trying to weasel around it and give bulls**t excuses for what they're doing when it's blatantly obvious to anyone what's going on.
"Google considered this a concession as there's more wireless competition in the space and there's a better chance of the market determining this policy."
Gees, f**k off. Seriously. That's the most ridiculous apologist drivel I've read in ages. You have some proof of that statement? Are you somehow doing a mind-meld to Eric Schmidt and know this is what he's thinking for a fact?
writebAug 18, 2010
f**k me? Seriously? RTFA and weep assh**e:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/facts-about-our-network-neutrality.html
"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, we have agreed to a proposal that allows this market to remain free from regulation for now, while Congress keeps a watchful eye.
Why? First, the wireless market is more competitive than the wireline market, given that consumers typically have more than just two providers to choose from. Second, because wireless networks employ airwaves, rather than wires, and share constrained capacity among many users, these carriers need to manage their networks more actively. Third, network and device openness is now beginning to take off as a significant business model in this space.
In our proposal, we agreed that the best first step is for wireless providers to be fully transparent with users about how network traffic is managed to avoid congestion, or prioritized for certain applications and content. Our proposal also asks the Federal government to monitor and report regularly on the state of the wireless broadband market. Importantly, Congress would always have the ability to step in and impose new safeguards on wireless broadband providers to protect consumers’ interests.
It’s also important to keep in mind that the future of wireless broadband increasingly will be found in the advanced, 4th generation (4G) networks now being constructed. Verizon will begin rolling out its 4G network this fall under openness license conditions that Google helped persuade the FCC to adopt. Clearwire is already providing 4G service in some markets, operating under a unique wholesale/openness business model. So consumers across the country are beginning to experience open Internet wireless platforms, which we hope will be enhanced and encouraged by our transparency proposal."
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cubicledroneAug 18, 2010
"Why? First, the wireless market is more competitive than the wireline market, given that consumers typically have more than just two providers to choose from."
And they have one wired provider because that provider has a government-manufactured monopoly.
"Second, because wireless networks employ airwaves, rather than wires, and share constrained capacity among many users, these carriers need to manage their networks more actively."
False dilemma. Constrained capacity is the result of insufficient innovation and investment by those carriers.
"Third, network and device openness is now beginning to take off as a significant business model in this space."
Network and device openness = Android. We're starting to make money now, so we want to build a gigantic barrier to entry so nobody else can compete, provide jobs and grow the economy. EXACTLY the same business model, right down to the OEM agreements, as Microsoft.
"In our proposal, we agreed that the best first step is for wireless providers to be fully transparent with users about how network traffic is managed to avoid congestion, or prioritized for certain applications and content."
We're going to piss all over the Internet while John Madden does color commentary.
"Importantly, Congress would always have the ability to step in and impose new safeguards on wireless broadband providers to protect consumers’ interests."
Google and Verizon presume to grant Congress authority to "step in?"
Still haven't heard one f**kING WORD about the people who BUILT THE WEB. That would be the USERS.
"So consumers across the country are beginning to experience open Internet wireless platforms,"
Whenever I hear the word "consumer" my bulls**t alarm goes off.
This proposal should and will be opposed every step of the way by people who understand the web and why it is important.
robdazombaAug 18, 2010
@writeb
That's your source you're going to cite to support your viewpoint? A Google PR blog?
Hey, I have an idea. Let's ignore all the articles out there written by informed and intelligent sources who have analyzed this situation and found it to be a raw deal for everyone except Google, and let's completely ignore our gut instincts and what history has taught us many times before this and instead just put 100% of our trust in a f**king PR blog.
Brilliant! Just brilliant. For f**k's sake. The world really is getting dumber by the day.
writebAug 18, 2010
@robdazomba,
The actual proposal was originally published on a "Google PR blog." Testament to you not knowing your ass from your keyboard. Here's the actual article:
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-for-open-internet.html
"Sixth, we both recognize that wireless broadband is different from the traditional wireline world, in part because the mobile marketplace is more competitive and changing rapidly. In recognition of the still-nascent nature of the wireless broadband marketplace, under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency requirement. In addition, the Government Accountability Office would be required to report to Congress annually on developments in the wireless broadband marketplace, and whether or not current policies are working to protect consumers. "
You sir, fail the internet.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
writebAug 18, 2010
@cubicledrone,
Congratulations! You've flamed a PR statement in a third party circle jerk of an exchange that figures to change exactly jack. Most of your ignorant ass rallying cry yelling points have no merit, and don't require response. But, I'm curious.... What have you *done* about network neutrality? Have you written your congress person? Have you donated to any progressive cause? Have you quit your broadband or wireless providers because of it? (and yes, I've done 3 of the four. Tmobile still is the lesser of many evils, despite s**tty coverage...)
"False dilemma. Constrained capacity is the result of insufficient innovation and investment by those carriers."
- You can't have it both ways. Are carriers entitled to recoup the cost of their infrastructure, R&D, Maintenance and marketing investments, or not? Where is the line drawn? Either way, if the problem *is* underinvestment and maintenance as you say; guess what? It'll cost money to fix it. When has that *not* been passed through to the customer? Can you argue that users (especially the ones using disproportionately high bandwidth) shouldn't have to foot part of the bill -with a straight face? Probably not.
"Still haven't heard one f**kING WORD about the people who BUILT THE WEB. That would be the USERS."
-Bwaahahaha!
Paid for =! "build," first of all. But to entertain your line of reasoning, Porn, my friend, built the internet.
You've clearly associated Network Neutrality with a non rational (and not negotiable) overwrought Human Rights position. I agree in spirit with the sense of urgency, but seeing that no one has succeeded in exercising appropriate authority in this industry debate, you need to embrace opportunities for consensus when you can. This is the best and worst of how America works. As long as you have private industry running this piece, you want the govt to get out of the way ASAP and let the market decide.
cubicledroneAug 18, 2010
"Are carriers entitled to recoup the cost of their infrastructure, R&D, Maintenance and marketing investments, or not?"
By all means, provided they sell a product people actually want to buy. What they do instead is rely on artificial monopolies so they can overcharge for their half-assed poorly-designed unwiped ass products, pocket all the money and then bleat to Congress to give them free handouts.
AT&T pocketed $200,000,000,000.00 meant to be invested in new infrastructure. Where is it? It sure as f**k isn't being used to improve the iPhone.
Now they want to f**k up the entire Internet so they can "recoup" their half-a-loaf investment? BULLs**t.
"you need to embrace opportunities for consensus when you can"
The only consensus in this argument is that about 90% of the Internet thinks Google and Verizon are full of s**t.
tombkillaAug 18, 2010
oh yeah, like privatizing ma bell went well for everyone.
kaelyiestaAug 18, 2010
"The Internet doesn't belong to the carriers. They don't get a vote. They operate their businesses at the pleasure of the people, who paid for the Internet to be built in the first place. The Internet is a public resource: no different from the public airwaves, and it will be treated as such."
This is the source of your misunderstanding. The infrastructure was created through government taking our money and giving it to corporations who now sit on that subsidized monopoly. This means that you and I rightfully own bits and pieces. What it does NOT mean is that the government owns it. This absurd distortion between 'the public' and the government needs to stop.
The solution is simple. Stop government stealing from us, and stop letting the government justify that theft as a reason they ought to control the infrastructure we paid for. End these artificial monopolies and let society support whatever services it likes best. This collective ownership/obligation s**t is showing its faults.
kaelyiestaAug 18, 2010
Bah, my reply ability failed me. This was intended to go under cubicledrones comment. Sorry.
cubicledroneAug 19, 2010
"This absurd distortion between 'the public' and the government needs to stop."
The public is the government. See "Declaration of Independence" et. al.
"End these artificial monopolies"
Hear Hear.
mexvinceAug 18, 2010
I've always been a really big Google supporter, even recently bought an android phone almost fully in support of them. I am regretting it a bit now.
everlast88Aug 18, 2010
Glad I went with a Blackberry.
darkphenoxAug 18, 2010
RIM doesn't exactly have clean hands anymore with butting servers in Saudi Arabia and talking to India about the possibility of going against their renowned security and privacy.
everlast88Aug 18, 2010
Can you name a company with completely clean hands?
s73v3rAug 18, 2010
Actually, to their credit, while RIM does have some tools available for law enforcement agencies to get information, they have stated that they will not make special concessions for anyone beyond what they already have. They told the Indian government to f**k off.
energyxAug 18, 2010
yep. 'don't be evil' is as believeable as 'you're in good hands with allstate'
elliotysAug 18, 2010
Dugg for the thumbnail.
mrnaturalAug 18, 2010
Net Neutrality will either be murdered or left to die of neglect.
Call your congressmen and threaten them with not being reelected if they don't support full and unfettered Net Neutrality. Then hold them to it.
pw378Aug 18, 2010
This bad-Google s**t is all lies people. Google has not abandoned Net Neutrality! Its like a stupid meme gone bad!!!
bewareofthecowAug 18, 2010
Oh really? Their actions appear to tell a different story.
robdazombaAug 18, 2010
You know, the air is much fresher when you don't have your face buried in Eric Schmidt's taint.
haleonearthAug 18, 2010
Eric Schmidt is a viper.
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
Internet, at this point, should be a public utility, not a premium service.
particleman420Aug 18, 2010
now all you have to do is explain that to the teabaggy morons in terms they can understand
jabbrwockeyAug 18, 2010
Being fiscally conservative does not mean cutting the power lines.
But it is disappointing to see so Obama, so many democrats, and the Tea Party AGAINST net neutrality.
WTF?!??
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
It's because like most idiots they attack what they do not understand.
thealliedhackerAug 18, 2010
http://i.imgur.com/YcSIL.jpg
evildeadashAug 19, 2010
That idea is as f**king dumb as a tiered internet.
dalittleAug 18, 2010
The irony that people who oppose Net Neutrality will not be able to say what they want on the internet if the telecoms carve it up is not lost on me.
meridianAug 18, 2010
i feel like the blackhat hackers will take care of this, hell maybe even some greyhatters will join in and disrupt this. I know
Or am i being to naive, probably not, hopefully not. There will always be work arounds and exploits.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
darkstorm777Aug 18, 2010
If s**t truly hits the fan.....s**t is going to truly hit the fan
ruthlesspirateAug 18, 2010
Hopefully there will be workarounds, but then the GOP will start labeling hackers as terrorists and start black-bagging them.
ivanmarshAug 18, 2010
Personally I'm waiting for Cisco to step forward and declare "NOT WITH OUR ROUTERS!".
nyxerebosAug 18, 2010
I'm pretty sure Cisco sell routers to China for use in their censorship efforts, why do you think they give a crap about anything other than their stock price?
ivanmarshAug 18, 2010
@nyxerebos - Wanting someone to do something and expecting them to do it aren't the same thing.
frakkinbastardAug 18, 2010
No, there won't be exploits. We're not in 1990 anymore, the people in charge have had time to learn how to do things. Enjoy the last 2-3 years of the Internet the way you knew it, it's going away and there's nothing you can do about it.
meridianAug 18, 2010
lawls, we are not in 1990 anymore? Sorry I didn't know we had developed perfect programs and perfect firmware unable to be exploited or manipulated in any way. School of hard knocks taught me that any system, no matter how secure, must have some design flaw. The internet isn't a pandorica, its created by fallible humans.
just like there are existing workarounds for censorship, hell I even bypassed my schools filtering programs by first obfuscating through babel fish, then they patched that. Then i just used a secure SSH tunnel to bypass filtering. Still works to my knowledge.
ivanmarshAug 18, 2010
Wow!!!! Your school??!?! The most secure facility known to man?!?!?
...your school sounds like its security is circa 1980 not 1990.
fuzi0ndetAug 18, 2010
Google and Verizon better not try to hold my porn hostage. If I have to pay an extra twenty buck a month to avoid my porn from loading up like it did in the dial up age I'm going to be pissed.
rsm33Aug 18, 2010
So 48 people have commented on this, and more than 400 have dugg it. How many have called or written their senators and congressmen? Joined a net neutrality initiative? Done anything other than comment about this on digg?
Just saying. It is great that people care about this, but lets convert all this to action and not just snark. Otherwise we will all be censored in no time.
kannebasAug 18, 2010
'Hope' is a license to not act. So is despair. Sometimes you get tired of getting the pitchforks and torches, ready to storm the gates and then when you turn around, no one's there.
keybordcommandoAug 18, 2010
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/basics/
Get involved.
rsm33Aug 18, 2010
In addition to contacting your representatives, here is a link with some extremely easy ways to do something. Every little bit helps.
http://www.savetheinternet.com/
ivanmarshAug 18, 2010
I have... do I think that understood what I was telling them? I don't know... I used a highway metaphor I assume anyone who's ever driven a car should be able to understand... don't know if it translates to the back of a Lincoln Towncar Limo though.
bungdiddyAug 20, 2010
I'm not interested in contacting my rep. I'm ready to fight.
itwasonlyajokeAug 18, 2010
This is very ironic, because both these companies, iirc, were originally touting the whole, "all Internet traffic should be treated equality" philosophy. It that the net neutrality they're preaching now is 100% different from the original one.
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
It's called money, power and influence.
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
Let's let the MPAA and the RIAA decide.
pimpofpixelsAug 18, 2010
The people who most want to "cabel-ize" the internet, accuse Google and Verizon of attempting to "cabel-ize" the internet.
Seems like I've seen this before somewhere...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
stockjonesAug 18, 2010
Lol ok who is more evil now Google or Microsoft? haha. Whether its Apple, Google or Microsoft. At the end of the day, they're out to make a profit and increase earnings. Google turned to sour the minute it went IPO..
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
Honestly, people are being entitled and unreasonable. This has a lot of safeguards against blocking content or downgrading service to certain content. At the end of the day, this is simply paying an additional fee to get faster access to things like game servers and medical data for hospitals. Furthermore, the fact of the matter is bandwidth shaping is a necessary element to most modern WAN networks. I'm quite shocked how unwilling most people are to compromise. These manner of implementations will do very little to effect most people's YouTube watching or Facebook browsing -- if any.
If you have never worked with a network, you have no idea what manner of havoc unrestrained P2P traffic can do to EVERYBODY'S service. If most people let their torrents go to a 1:1 ratio, then that would be (probably) okay. The problem is, most people just leave their torrents on to clog the precious, expensive upload bandwidth. Since most cable networks suffer from saturation at peak hours as is, bandwidth is fairly sparse.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
thatmarksguyAug 18, 2010
"This has a lot of safeguards against blocking content or downgrading service to certain content."
There will be ways around that. Don't worry its all in your best interest.
"At the end of the day, this is simply paying an additional fee to get faster access to things like game servers and medical data for hospitals."
Which is precisely what is wrong with it. Why should the game server be treated differently? WHY THE f**k I have to pay EXTRA (AGAIN) so that the Team Fortress 2 packets are not artificially slowed down. Medical data? Seriously?! At most they can use QoS to "ensure" the "medical packets" get there without problem. What a bulls**t extortion raquet!
"These manner of implementations will do very little to effect most people's YouTube watching or Facebook browsing -- if any."
Well see that when they start charging separate access for YouTube and Facebook.
"[your last paragraph...] Since most cable networks suffer from saturation at peak hours as is, bandwidth is fairly sparse. "
They're a f**king monopoly! Invest in the network! Upgrade the infrastructure! Wow talk about entitlement.
haleonearthAug 18, 2010
It's simple, don't like it, don't use their s**t.
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
Read the f**king article. They're trying to change the way the internet is made available to everyone. Not just their customers...EVERYONE. And they have a whole lot of money and a whole lot of support.
haleonearthAug 18, 2010
Where do you think their money comes from genius, Santa Claus? Google has one, and only one means of income: paid search.
s73v3rAug 18, 2010
You first. Get off the internet.
haleonearthAug 18, 2010
So is it your concession that Google and Verizon ARE the Internet?
ivanmarshAug 18, 2010
You cannot apply capitalism to a system that is fundamentally engineered around the premise of open cooperative effort... without that effort it ceases to function.
liabilityAug 18, 2010
Google has jumped the shark.
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
Not nearly enough people seem outraged like this they way they should be. I guess in a typical American fashion, everyone will wait until it goes through and then start with the, 'How could this have happened in America?'
Because when this s**t passes (and it will because of the money unless people start to organize), it will literally be like taking a step back 30 years in terms of progress.
ivanmarshAug 18, 2010
That's because right wing jackwads keep telling the sheep that you have your choice of ISP and that's competition and that's good... being completely ignorant that your local ISP has no control what so ever over how traffic is routed.
climboniceAug 18, 2010
Google can do no wrong IMO. I know I trust them way too much! However I love Chrome (can't imagine giving it up) and Picasa, Gmail, Voice, YouTube, Docs...
<Sigh>Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tsk05Aug 18, 2010
I use Firefox, never used Picasa or Gmail or Google Talk or docs. I switched my browser to use Bing as search after reading about this Verizon - Google deal.
shafiqissaniAug 18, 2010
The day that happens every tech savvy person will become a terrorist and Goggle and other related companies will cease to exist within a week of their announcement of such service.
Mark my words when I say Law will be rendered useless.
cursumAug 18, 2010
trudat
docholiday22Aug 18, 2010
"You can't beat the Internet baby, people will find a way to distribute..."
- Joe Rogan.
ivanmarshAug 18, 2010
Yeah... we'll install our own backbone routers and... oh, we can't do that.
noirbassAug 18, 2010
Nickelback Googles.
prokidryanAug 18, 2010
I liked Google more when they were just the search engine...
rehasher01Aug 18, 2010
I'm just sick of paying Google so much money for its services.
rettocsAug 18, 2010
/s?
senturionAug 18, 2010
But...but...but...Google...open.
zsaviorAug 18, 2010
Google garnered to much power to quickly of course they were always evil. The problem is we the users gave them that power. Time and time again we fall for the ploy, myself included. Google buts heads with Steve Jobs, google portrays itself as a champion and Jobs and Apple tyrants.
But the facts are clear, Google is the one trying to destroy internet freedom. If Google has its way it would fully cooperate with giving up your anonymity on the Net to the government. How did Google get into this position, easy answer is we gave them the information. Through programs like Gmail they learned all the needed to; I now have no doubt that Google has sold tons of our info and kept data to manipulate as they please.
To speak this openly about carving up the net, and siding with the government against the user, means Google has a hold on the internet and information business that they are not afraid will weaken even if the people know what they are doing. This is why I bloody use fire fox.
To date, google, started out as a search engine, now they have a web browser, then and operating system (coming soon). Now they have phones, and mobile os. People believe this is all free and Google is just some benevolent company but reality is, this puts Google everywhere, and open to tons of information. Google did a massive power grab for the internet and it worked; they hid under the guise of free and "Don't be EVIL". Truth is any company that is this power hungry has to be evil.
delvisAug 18, 2010
Dear rest of the world,
Please get a f**king opinion on this before the sinkhole of reason that is American politics ruins everything for everybody again.
Sincerely,
The Internet
aubieguy333Aug 18, 2010
With as many things Congress and government agencies are doing that absolutely enrage me, it's really refreshing to see them fighting for something I support.
afterlife23Aug 18, 2010
they want to shut down alex jones
vikingscoolAug 21, 2010
Yea, you're right!
bijaAug 18, 2010
This country is really more of a Corporatocracy than a Democracy. Our elected politicians take money from corporations to vote in their favor. Some are so bold as to let corporations write the legislation that gets voted into law. The Internet made it possible for Barack Obama to become president. That must never happen again--as far as some are concerned. They need to take control of the Internet and turn it into the same type of media they already control--like cable TV.
vektuzAug 18, 2010
Oh good, I'm glad they're "warning" them, I'm sure that Google and Verizon will take this warning seriously, since it has absolutely no force of law and all of the financial incentives are encouraging them to do the opposite.
haleonearthAug 18, 2010
Headed to a public hearing this week to voice pro-Net Neutrality stance. Attendees include Al Franken, FCC Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn and Secretary of State Mark Ritchie. - Brought to you by the creators of Don't Just Sit There!
ivanmarshAug 18, 2010
"Cabel-ize"? They do realize I've finally given up on cable and canceled even the basic cable I had because it's all crap and not worth paying for?
vikingscoolAug 21, 2010
I will cancel cable when Google will beat it. I will not support Google and Comcast when new internet 2 comes.
jason221Aug 18, 2010
Awesome thumbnail.
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
So, has Google become to the new Microsoft yet? It's only a matter of time until everyone hates them too.
furiousmoeAug 18, 2010
".... oh, but you people don't understand, we only want to have premium access for wireless customers... blah blah blah"
In 10 years EVERYTHING will be wireless, wired will be obsolete! That's like saying "Hey, don't worry, we're not restricting broadcast television signals, it's only the cable we want to sell tiered access too"