Users who Dugg This
Donald Melanson
77 Followers
Chris Ziegler
463 Followers
Nick Young
42 Followers
Kevin Brandt
0 Followers
joseph flatley
15 Followers
bartboy919Aug 9, 2010
This is good for Internet in your house, not so much for internet on your phone.
Essentially, Wired internet won't change at all, but wireless internet isn't going to be subject to any sort of net neutrality rules.
I'm not surprised Verizon would make such a s**tty deal, but why is Google doing it?
f**k TELECOMS.
vstg005Aug 9, 2010
The allegations of hypocrisy arise mostly from their championing of non-discrimination and transparency, while simultaneously including the caveat of ‘additional online services’: “A broadband provider could offer additional services that could include traffic prioritization.”
They claim the proposal includes safeguards to ensure such services are distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband service, and not designed to circumvent the rules. But what’s to keep the ISPs from reducing speeds for regular broadband plans and offer faster service for video/gaming at higher prices?
Mobile internet users still stay screwed, a.k.a. the compromise to pass Net Neutrality.
Apart from that, there’s the one giant hilarious finger to Comcast: “because of the confusion about the FCC’s authority following the Comcast court decision, our proposal spells out the FCC’s role and authority in the broadband space.”
So, more power (and case-by-case enforcement work) for FCC and less to other regulators. For now, this policy *proposal* is just that: (a series of) pipe dreams.
venom8599Aug 9, 2010
Additional services would be things like FiOS TV--where yeah, it's carried on the same connection, but it's dedicated bandwidth for that. The proposal indicated they want the FCC to oversee said services, and to make sure they don't interfere with traditional broadband. I presume if they decided to try to screw over the traditional portion of their network artificially I'd presume that would be considered trying to circumvent the rules.
I do suppose they could offer a faster dedicated gaming service at a higher price, if they wanted, but they wouldn't be allowed to degrade any normal traffic to do so, so the high price would be the barrier that likely stops its adoption.
shpoffoAug 10, 2010
I think the notion of "not degrading normal service" is itself a misnomer in the larger debate – and going to sell everyone down the same river of traffic prioritization. Why?
Internet connection speeds have steadily increased (in the US and other countries) without the price of home access changing. I paid about $25 / mo for dial up, and I still pay around that now ($40) for DSL. I recognize some people pay as much as $70 in the US for 'high speeds.' In general, though, the access cost has not scaled as quickly as the relative throughput.
If this kind of legislation is formalized, it will give internet providers carte blanche to lock internet access speeds at today's throughput, while steadily charging more and more for general trends - let alone social advancements. Cable TV networks failing and web-streamed programming is the next stage? There's a cost for that. etc. etc. etc.
No one should be stupid to the costs of heavy bandwidth usage. There's a reason that 'Internet2' was rolled out to universities first. But 'internet1' was first rolled out to the same universities while the rest of us were on dialup. Tomorrow it will be something else, like this fancy structured-core fiber.
This is part of the complexity between free markets and regulation. We rely upon regulation to improve the baseline of society... otherwise people get charged $1 USD / gallon for drinking water.
(Every market is bubble compared with basic water needs.)
skeloothAug 10, 2010
You use a lot of big words incorrectly.
kennykljAug 9, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
blklightningAug 9, 2010
the loudest chick gets the worm.
no, that's not right. ye who hath most money shall inherit the earth.
yes, i think that's how it goes.
apothekariAug 10, 2010
The Golden Rule.
"We who have the gold, Make the Rules"
godsbongAug 9, 2010
I would have to agree, but unfortunately thats been the law of the land for the past few decades.. = (
bloodshoteyes88Aug 9, 2010
While this may be true in some situations in this case it is more like corporations are suggesting possible regulatory practices. While if I find out that they are pushing some kind of language through by bribing or something of the like I would be unhappy about it they do have the right to simply suggest how something could be done. Much like you or I could do something similar.
duffguyAug 9, 2010
You do realize that when corporations suggest regulatory practices, it is because regulations stifle competition and assure larger control of the market for big business. See the latest financial reform bill as exhibit A.
"Unfortunately that's been the law of the land for the past few decades."
Exactly.
bloodshoteyes88Aug 10, 2010
My point was simply that they have the right to make a suggestion, while I reserve the right to not like their suggestion.
Oh, and as a general rule it has been the law of the land for a lot more than a few decades.
xenophreniaAug 10, 2010
@DuffGuy - Regulations can go both ways. They stifle when the large corporations have the government by the balls. Or the wallet rather. There's a reason the saying "the love of money is the root of all evil"
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
I see you've been on vacation for the last 70 years.
lolcoelacanthAug 10, 2010
Only 70?
000dnjAug 10, 2010
But since they do why not get behind on you like?
ciarAug 10, 2010
wat
originalmadmattAug 10, 2010
reach around!
bivariateAug 10, 2010
FCC Commissioner On Verizon-Google Proposal: Time To Put Consumers First http://tech.mynucleus.org/story/2010/08/10/fcc_comissioner_on_verizongoogle_st
ghostwoAug 10, 2010
Corporations (via lobbyists) make the laws, and congress approves them. I've heard about several cases where lobbyists would hand over pre-written bills that would then be passed, even though nobody read them. Government has become a corporate subsidiary, bought and paid for.
isobaneAug 10, 2010
too late
rotzooiAug 10, 2010
Corporations bought our politicians fair and square. They should be able to make any law they wish.
(The above goes for other countries than the US of A as well)
fightermeleeAug 9, 2010
and everyone thought they were going to kill the internet, when in fact, they're trying to save their users!
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
/s
davidtcAug 9, 2010
People thought Google was trying to kill the internet? Whoever thought that are huge f**ktards.
appleofdischordAug 9, 2010
Google is the internet.
chaos36Aug 10, 2010
You obviously didn't see the article on the front page the other day. Full of speculation and everyone was quick to criticize Google with no evidence.
mca2142Aug 9, 2010
RTFAgreement
gaminandyAug 9, 2010
Google +1, Verizon +1, Comast/IO/Roadrunner -1, At&t/MaBell -1
manbreastAug 10, 2010
Misinformed internet user: +1.
Closed AccountAug 10, 2010
All that fancy math ended with -12 diggs.
mca2142Aug 9, 2010
the agreement clearly states that while verizon will leave their wired traffic alone, they can govern their wireless traffic ANY WAY THEY SEE FIT.
and wireless is the future.
open? MY ASS.
bigdorkaramaAug 9, 2010
I'd rather not.
echelonistAug 10, 2010
Interrogation marks agnostic? sucks.
truejournalsAug 9, 2010
It makes sense, though, and they make a very compelling argument. Wired bandwidth is essentially unlimited. However, wireless inherently carries a limit with it. So, they're allowing wireless providers to limit wireless a bit to ease the transition and the massive bandwidth required, but not available. As wireless becomes more mature, we'll eventually need to rethink this.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mca2142Aug 9, 2010
"wireless inherently carries a limit with it"
That is why technology always improves. Soon, today's limits of wireless bandwidth will be a thing of the past. But, this agreement will still stand.
Any agreement or law that prohibits the progress of technology is in my opinion, counter-productive.
truejournalsAug 9, 2010
I disagree. I think it takes a bit longer, but we do see change as technology progresses. When AOL was popular, it was bundled with its own browser, IM client, search engine, etc. Basically, if you had AOL, you used all of THEIR online tools. No one had a problem with that. Now, the EU has problems with Microsoft bundling IE with their OS! If some company tried today what AOL had done, it just wouldn't stand. Wired networks have increased their bandwidth, so we see progress on how we deal with that front. Give it time, and we'll eventually see the same thing on the wireless front.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mca2142Aug 9, 2010
When AOL was popular, the browser they shipped was actually a skinned version of IE5. And they signed a tacit agreement allowing the sharing of their IM protocols with Yahoo and Apple. And all this and the stuff you wrote about MS and the EU is irrelevant in this case. This is about packet filtering. Not about the choice of browsers. Completely different.
"Give it time, and we'll eventually see the same thing on the wireless front."
Exactly, but this agreement between the largest wireless provider in the US, and the largest web company will still stand. That is the inhibiting factor. That is what's wrong with this picture.
NOT what browser EU allows on their windows, or what AOL did. You can't say, "look what happened with AOL, net neutrality will be fine."
projectgsxAug 10, 2010
"As wireless becomes more mature, we'll eventually need to rethink this."
This is exactly why its a bad idea to set the precedent of wireless being held to a different standard. Wireless is the future. Just like I ditched my landline for a cell phone, one day I imagine I will ditch my home internet service for a completely wireless version.
puzzudAug 9, 2010
I'm as skeptical as you are. But realize that there will never be a 100% wireless situation. Wireless is not the future, it's now.
Your mobile phone does not communicate directly with other mobile phones like walkie-talkies. If they did, Verizon couldn't control jack... they would essentially be out of the picture. Instead your phone communicates with one of their wireless towers and the data makes 80% of its long wired journey on an ATM network. The ATM network is HEAVILY prioritized based on how much Verizon or any other huge corporation pays to use it. Eventually the data makes its way to another wireless tower or finds its way on to what we conventionally call the Internet.
What part of that data's journey is going to be effected by these Google/Verizon proposals? The wireless portion is relatively small but ultimately the bottleneck if Verizon chooses to throttle bandwidth. Who are the people using Verizon's towers? Mostly it's customers but I also assume other cell provider's customers who are using those towers to roam. THOSE are the people who are most likely to get their bandwidth slowed, not Verizon's own towers. And even still, I don't think it's usually just a Verizon tower, meaning different carriers share the towers--this could possibly be where Verizon makes out in the situation--it pays the most and it dominates the tower--it and its customers get the benefit.
I seriously don't see the government regulating ATM backbones. The very nature of ATM traffic is prioritized data--that's how it is designed. These talks don't effect Verizon much at all, I think. In fact, Verizon just wants to get government regulation out of its hair.
unitedatheismAug 10, 2010
How's wireless broadband internet where you live?
I'm gonna tell ya how's it done here:
You get X (here X=7) mbps of internet (just talking about downstream, but the numbers or the direction don't matter at all) for you and everybody else who happens to be in the same cell as you.
So, if you want to use your SIP-enabled phone in a cell that is somewhat idle, you have working VoIP, but then you move around while in the same call and roam to another cell which someone is using P2P or VOD at Xmbps, what happens to your call? Yeah, right, 20kbps, high-latency internet is just lovely, NOT!
Now, replace call with web browsing, downloading, online gaming, you-name-it.
SO STOP ACTING LIKE AN ASS AND THINK THAT ALL THE COMPANIES DO IS SCREW THE CONSUMER JUST TO BE BAD, this is right in just 95% of the time.
bigdorkaramaAug 9, 2010
BP publishes proposal for clean energy.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
Apple publishes proposal for better customer communications
vexvexAug 10, 2010
Republicans publish proposal for helping minorities and the poor.
harry19023Aug 10, 2010
c'mon, completely unrelated to the article. you have it when conservative trolls do it, its not ok for you either
xkorbinAug 10, 2010
Rick James publishes proposal for declaring women as 'bitches.'
Closed AccountAug 10, 2010
@xkorbin publishes proposal for 'doing it right' on the internet.
botaxeroAug 10, 2010
Microsoft publishes proposal for better open source.
wontonforevuhAug 10, 2010
Justin Bieber publishes proposal for having a penis.
originalmadmattAug 10, 2010
Fox publishes proposal for being fair and balanced
johnnysoftwareAug 17, 2010
What happens to all those "carbon credits" and "carbon markets" with the discovery this week that 80% of the oil is still around, resting on the sea floor and in plumes? Apparently, the oil is making its way to the East.
Seems like, given the high percentage of carbon in oil, and the incredible quantity of oil BP is ejecting into the ocean this year(s), the carbon markets are either a joke or really vital, depending on some policy-makers' whims.
How many carbon offset credits is BP going to be obligated to buy this year - and are there even enough in existence yet to offset the Deepwater Horizon disaster?
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
I said this a few days ago and google-lovers chastised me for it. We compromised with a wait-and-see. Well, I'm here to say it again:
f**k Google.
protogenxlAug 9, 2010
Hey Verizon less propsals and more finishing the FIOS network in my town!
sucka27Aug 10, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
lightstabAug 9, 2010
I love how people on Digg never read between the lines, they always resort to their fanboy biases. In this case, Google is campaigning an open internet on desktop computers, while creating an exception (that they will obviously exploit) for wireless devices, i.e. smartphones. This way their handsets get priority over other phones (i.e. the soon to be non-exclusive iPhone) on Verizon's network.
Wake up and read the article before you declare Google is "oh so looking out for me!" They're not.
xnorwaksAug 10, 2010
Thats the largest issue with this entire proposal. Its really just a huge pump fake for everyone that isnt reading between the lines. Everything that they proposed for wired networks looks sound with the exception of alternative internet services which would certainly need some revisions when more is understood about the consumer demand for these services and whether the same provisions for wired networks would be made for these alternative services in the future. However, all of this seems to be touted with the fact that the wireless networks would become heavily regulated being something of an underlying issue that could lead to big problems. f**k google for masquerading really backwards ideas designed to make cash with progressive ideas that deal with issues important to most internet users.
deathfiredAug 10, 2010
More like a big f**k you to ISPs not in the mobile market...like Comcast. While ISPs like Comcast would have to follow the wired laws company's like Verizon (who sells Google phones) wouldn't feel the full hurt. This feels almost like a cover just to push the wireless stuff through. They think users are gonna be as dumb as when Bush snuck the patriot act in between two relief bills.
klijAug 10, 2010
honestly I can live with that situation, the mobile market is already a big f**k you to consumers, and hope and wait for the saturation of wifi.
blklightningAug 9, 2010
"Get all that?"
no, i didn't; i'm a rock that just learned to surf the internet. elitist prick.
sl123000Aug 9, 2010
This isn't what it appears. This is an effort on Verizon's/Google's part (whose phones saturate Verizon's network) to introduce regulations on wireless broadband (our future). It's what Comcast wanted to do to their wired internet services a while back, but Verizon and Google know that the future of the internet is wireless and they want to control what goes over it, and at what speed.
Corporations shouldn't be working together to introduce bills in our government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
look again, folks, this is a big win for us. the wireless section may not be perfect, but it's a step in the right direction overall.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
I really, really, really want to believe you Google....
jwdavAug 10, 2010
Meanwhile, over at Android Central, news of Google yanking an app from the marketplace:
"When I first started getting word from people that Easy Root had been pulled from the Market I was surprised. I am sure that like many others I choose the Android platform for its commitment to openness and freedom."
tonmilAug 9, 2010
Two networks one private with special pricing? No thanks. Give me one open Internet and one price for wire-line and wireless.
sl123000Aug 9, 2010
This will go on to create the new internet which will be high speed for services which are provided by carriers, websites and services will soon be offered as extensions to our phone bills. I can see it now:
"14.99 a month basic package - Google.com, Verizon.com, Hulu.com, etc."
"49.99 a month unlimited package - rest of internet, etc."
These devices will go farther than provide services to smartphones, they will prioritize dedicated devices like kindle and other heavy media consuming tablets and media consumption devices. These mobile modems will be inside all of our PC's and internet connected devices because it's cheaper than laying a new line to rural areas.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nitrologlyAug 9, 2010
Am I the only one made uneasy by the obvious power corporations have in our government?! And the wireless part seemed pretty shady. Sheesh more tech more problems...
absurdparadoxAug 10, 2010
Private organizations such as corporations have always had, and will always have vast power within governmental organizations. The reason being that both are made up of humans.
bobrownAug 9, 2010
Eric Schmidt on net neutrality:
"I want to be clear what we mean by Net neutrality: What we mean is if you have one data type like video, you don't discriminate against one person's video in favor of another. But it's okay to discriminate across different types, so you could prioritize voice over video, and there is general agreement with Verizon and Google on that issued."
When did that happen? Last I googled, it meant you don't discriminate against any data at all!
It sure looks like we’re losing this fight right under our noses.
http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/10/08/05/googl ...
http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2 ...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20100806/tc_pcworl ...
May I add, f**k GOOGLE!!
mrnaturalAug 9, 2010
I'm not sure if we can trust Google. I certain we can't trust Verizon...
bobrownAug 9, 2010
Eric Schmidt on net neutrality:
"I want to be clear what we mean by Net neutrality: What we mean is if you have one data type like video, you don't discriminate against one person's video in favor of another. But it's okay to discriminate across different types, so you could prioritize voice over video, and there is general agreement with Verizon and Google on that issued."
When did that happen? Last I googled, it meant you don't discriminate against any data at all!
It sure sounds like we’re losing this fight right under our noses.
http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/10/08/05/google-turns-its-back-net-neutrality
http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2010/08/is-google-about-to-sell-the-internet-down-the-river/index.htm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20100806/tc_pcworld/netneutralityaregoogleandverizonwaffling_1
May I add, f**k GOOGLE!!
lonewolf01Aug 9, 2010
I'm not sure what you're reading, but that's what Verizon and Google are pushing.
"Google CEO Eric Schmidt repeatedly said on the call that Google would never pay for prioritized access and Google products would remain on the public internet."
"Non-discrimination. This is one of the big ones -- it prohibits wired ISPs from discriminating against any traffic or content in a way that harms competition or users. Any sort of traffic prioritization is automatically presumed to violate this rule, but ISPs will be able to argue some exceptions."
http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/
That said, the lack of wireless in the proposal is a tad unnerving.
xnorwaksAug 10, 2010
We have a right to bitch about a corporation that pretends to have it in for the interest of internet users but pull s**t like this
wildAug 10, 2010
Yu're both reading the same thing, you are just not looking at the big picture. Google is saying they never want another service prioritized over a similar service (your point). They are ALSO saying that ISPs CAN decide that videos are delivered at a different speed than text. What does that mean? Verizon can make a second internet for gaming and video services and charge more for it. That is bulls**t, because it is is traffic prioritization, and it is not net neutrality.
thefirewireAug 10, 2010
What Schmidt is really thinking:
since we already control the flow of internet traffic and hold the largest share for internet search we want open standard for online services.
but since our mobile platform is still rivaled by other competitors like Apple and RIM we want to milk our customers and monetize services that have not yet been defined.
suricouAug 10, 2010
In the case of wireless, some form of QoS policy is really needed. You can't do low-latency multimedia on a congested network without it. I can still see potential for wriggling around their own rules though - for example, if they promise to treat all video equally, their classifier might only consider the content of paid-up partner sites as 'video' - everyone else's video just gets treated as a regular file, and the misclassification blamed on the configuration.
morpheousmartyAug 10, 2010
I am going to get dugg down to hell for this, but you have oversimplified the issue to a fox news level. I am in favor of net neutrality, but I also know nothing is ever so easy as "don't discriminate against any data at all." Is there no defense for the argument that voip packets, in which a delay of milliseconds is noticeable, should be prioritized over e-mail, where an extra second is almost interpretable? In other words that different data types have different performance needs, even to you.
I'm not defending what Google is doing in this case, but don't act like you wouldn't be pissed if your FPS and your DNS had the same latency.
dgafaunAug 9, 2010
who owns the internet?
ciarAug 10, 2010
al gore?
escoffierAug 10, 2010
no he just invented it
ciarAug 11, 2010
dude what's up escoffier, thanks for the brigade system man
suricouAug 10, 2010
Central management is mostly by ICANN, which is a nominally multinational organisation now, but in practice answers to the US Department of Commerce.
tgc1Aug 10, 2010
Nobody. It's a collective of networks operating together. Without that cooperation there is no Internet.
inkswampAug 9, 2010
This is so underhanded. And it's such a douchebag PR move to try to spin this as "we love the open Internet."
So much for the idea that Google was different from other corporations.
salimmkAug 9, 2010
Verizon requires you to use their devices on their network. Even with LTE phones which use SIM cards it needs to be a Verizon Certified Device. How is that supporting an open network? The article clearly states that users should be able to chose what "content, applications, or devices" they use. WTF?
cubicledroneAug 9, 2010
If you are stupid enough to believe that major corporations in this country don't want absolute control of the Internet, you're an idiot.
If you think we have economic problems now, see if you can guess what the economy will look like when the Internet becomes a television channel.
Every last shred of productive value generated by technology in the last 15 years will be swept away. It will take the United States 200 years to recover from the economic damage if the Internet becomes private property.
People better take this seriously. There's a hand on the plug and they are ready to pull it out of the wall.
cryonixAug 9, 2010
It's a bizzare concept. If no one has power over the internet, anyone (ISPs) can do what they please. Throttle it, block it, censor it... However if someone has power over it, they can choose to do the exact same things, or take the high road and make it impossible for anyone else to do those things. I don't approve of either side.
The "internet" just needed to have a better foundation during its construction so we wouldn't have to worry about this sort of thing... an INTERNET CONSTITUTION.
hubrisAug 9, 2010
The transparency element could be seen to require AT&T to officially explain the weaknesses in their network, causing a further revolt among iPhone users (among others) and additional slippage to those who have stronger networks. That element would be a huge win for Verizon.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
thurowsAug 9, 2010
Verizon and open do not go together.
ywwgAug 9, 2010
An internet designed as a compromise between giant corporations is not going to be as good or as fair as one designed by a bunch of scientists and engineers. We're lucky we got the internet we did, and there's no way it would ever be allowed to be created again.
delmonteAug 10, 2010
While this shouldn't be used as an excuse to accept proposals like these, you're so right about how lucky we are that we got this "open internet" thing.
I remember in the early 90s when the term "Information Highway" was all the rage. While the Web/Internet gradually took over this paradigm, it was first envisioned and pushed by the media as proprietary set-up boxes controlled by cable companies, or information "services" running on proprietary software platforms controlled by big corporations (AOL, Compuserve, MSN etc.)
Closed AccountAug 10, 2010
Jesus balls dude, this is just a proposal. Don't give up yet. Call a congressman and complain.
muffinmonkAug 10, 2010
They don't listen.
Closed AccountAug 10, 2010
bulls**t.
spinergyAug 9, 2010
I'd like to add my own **** Google.
Sadly, you just flushed my trust in Android also. "Don't be evil" bastards.
barbizonAug 10, 2010
Those hags!
dizzy149Aug 10, 2010
While I do like Google, I'm not under the illusion that they are perfect, and only looking out for OUR best interests.
As far as Verizon is concerned. No way in hell I want them championing anything "open" when they lock down their devices more than most carriers, and disable free features included in the phone and/or OS, just so they can charge you for their own version of the same thing.
efcosAug 10, 2010
What you should know, that they don't want you to know is that the world is running out of bandwidth for the demands of today, and they can't figure how to keep up. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
suricouAug 10, 2010
Keeping up is a simple matter of adding capacity. It's actually not too difficult, but it is very, very expensive. Just think of the cost of installing all those cell-phone base stations, and then going back a couple of years later to put in faster equipment. Include the cost of digging up roads to run the cables to them as well - even the wireless network needs some sort of infrastructure, which means every cell tower needs either a fiber cable running back to an exchange or a directional microwave link - and those only work line-of-sight.
stillhateyouAug 10, 2010
It's time to get realistic people. This is as good a deal as we can possibly get on this. Like it or not, 100% net neutrality is *never* going to happen, especially given that the Republican party appears poised to take over the House this year. This means that there won't be anything coming from Congress that's better than this proposal for the Internet as a whole. Further, the FCC was ruled not to have jurisdiction over this sort of stuff in the Comcast case, so the administration couldn't have just pushed something through even if they wanted to.
And, realistically, mobile internet does merit its own set of rules distinct from wireline. With wireline internet, bandwidth is as close to infinite as you can hope. If you need more bandwidth, it's as simple as running new lines, which may be costly, but is physically easy to do. However, with wireless, there's a finite electromagnetic spectrum to work with. Given finite bandwidth at a given transmitter power, there's an absolute physical limit to how much data you can push. Increasing bandwidth is out of the question entirely and power levels can only be increased so far before people near the transmitter start to cook and birds fall out of the sky. Mobile internet truly is a different beast, and it's absurd to expect that nothing like QOS or prioritization should occur.
In the end, we need to pick our battles. This proposal is certainly better than no action having been taken at all, which is what would have happened otherwise, and we as Internet users make ourselves seem impossible to please and completely unwilling to compromise when the only things we do are throw out phrases that are nothing more than a middle finger to Verizon and/or Google. Sometimes you have to compromise.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
venom8599Aug 10, 2010
Actually the FCC could (and should) just have an up or down vote and reclassify broadband access as a Title II Telecommunications service like it was before the Brand X decision in 2002--in which the Supreme Court found the FCC does have the authority to reclassify services.
rmkrmkrmkAug 10, 2010
It looks like the Internet
(takes off sunglasses)
has been owned.
YYYYYEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
smackythefrog00Aug 10, 2010
I'm seeing "f**k Google" popping up in the comments. That's so funny. Aren't we on the other teat that is Android and sucking on it furiously yelling "f**k Apple?" There's "f**k AT&T," "f**k the RIAA," and "f**k religion."
Considering most of us on here "f**k ourselves" to sleep every night, it's pretty funny we're satisfied just saying "f**k *****" instead of actually doing something about it.
"f**k you."
lolcoelacanthAug 10, 2010
Okay, and just what would you do to correct the bad behaviour of these corporations)? One thousand bucks says whatever you or anyone else on here come up with will amount to nothing, because you just can't stop their s**t at this point.
smackythefrog00Aug 10, 2010
I dunno. Ask the thousands that Digg articles that either praise Android or bash Apple and its iPhone. What will they do now?
I have a Droid, I'm typing this on a MBP, I love my first-gen iPod Touch and my other computer is a PC. So I'm not on anyone's side here.
I was merely pointing out how quickly the tides change on here. If someone were to read the comments and base their ideas off of what Digg, as a whole, believes, then that person must be confused as f**k right now as to whom to "f**k" next.
You can't praise Google for Android, bash Apple for "bulls**tting consumers with their propaganda to pay more for less" and then her the ol' reach around and now start bashing Google for becoming too powerful. It's your bulls**t "propaganda" that most people dislike Apple "blindly," and "blindly" embrace Android without knowing what the f**k it's all about, and finally allowing Google to pull some s**t like this.
f**k it, you all can figure it out. If Facebook, Digg, and Android Forums works for me, the rest of the internet can f**k off for good.
Apple's in bed with AT&T, now Verizon will count the number of wrinkles on the back of Android's scrotum..with its tongue. Keep at it with the "f**k *****."
lolcoelacanthAug 10, 2010
>>implying I ever praised Google for Android, or care in the least bit about the excessive smartphone market
Don't assume that everything the community does or says reflects the opinions of every member.
You just reiterated your previous comment, and never addressed my question.
suricouAug 10, 2010
They didn't start evil. They became evil slowly.
seshomarusammaAug 10, 2010
The only way to keep pure is to install Gentoo
sucka27Aug 10, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
Closed AccountAug 10, 2010
What, we aren't allowed to express anger at a situation? We aren't allowed to think two companies are acting badly at the same time?
Besides, all the "f**k Apple" rage on the iPhone 4 debacle did force Jobs to hold a media event explaining the antenna issue and give out free bumpers, right? s**t, we (the internet) even got the executive in charge of the iPhone line fired.
So maybe the echo chamber of "f**k Google" will help them realize who made them and who can switch to other services if they pull this s**t.
bivariateAug 10, 2010
I would be naive to believe that it is about 'net neutrality'. Corporations are out there to make money and this is just one of the possible ways that they would do so. I am skeptical that FCC will approve this plan. http://www.mynucleus.org/story/2010/08/09/verizon_and_google_propose_web_traf
Closed AccountAug 10, 2010
proposed pricing structure:
http://i7.tinypic.com/5z6vt4n.jpg
lorddiasAug 10, 2010
They was rough drafting this back when the internet first came out. Thats how old this picture is.
gogo001Aug 10, 2010
I'm sure Verizon used a combination of invisible ink and fine prints to trick Google into signing the no net neutrality over cellular network clause in the agreement. Cuz everyone knows that Google is all about fairness and openness and freedom and liberty and will never do anything to jeopardize consumer interest for economic gains.
Apple is the manifestation of all things evil, Jobs is the reincarnation of Hitler, and Google is rainbows + apple pies + Thomas Jefferson. Didn't Verizon get the memo?
masterkhaxAug 10, 2010
Obviously.
thefirewireAug 10, 2010
I love how Google has recently portrayed proponents for Net Neutrality to be on the fringe of public opinion, yet this is the same opinion that Google has staunchly supported for years even going as far as telling their users to take action and to call their state's representatives in an open letter by Schmidt himself.
http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html
Just because suddenly they are in bed with a giant Telco and their android platform is gaining traction that they are losing sight of what is important. The big pie of the Mobile wars has them jumping hoops to someone else's tune and it's not the first time that they've done it either.
I'm always disgusted how absurd the witch hunt against Apple is on this site. At least Apple tells you up front what they are doing. Everyone knows Steve Jobs is a douche but he makes no reservations about it nor does he hide behind mantra's like "Don't be Evil".
Google has always advocate for open standards but seemingly break every ideal set by the company in the name of corporate competitive gain. We've seen it with it's nonchalant demeanor on privacy and now we are seeing it with net neutrality.
cocopuffzAug 10, 2010
This really is an American problem. you've had it so good for so long. Unlimited bandwidth on cheap plans. Access to the online stores and streaming services like Hulu and Netflix.
Welcome to the desert of the real. mwhahhahah!!! There are places on this planet where they would love to have your problem. Some places think that 250 megs per month on a smartphone is a good idea.
At the end of the day, I bet the google haters worst case scenario will still be better than what we have in Canada and Australia etc..
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ninethirtyAug 10, 2010
Seriously, man? "Desert of the real"? Lame reference.
And service plans aren't bad in Canada at all. In fact, they're much better than most broadband services in the United States. I should know, I've lived in both countries. I live in Holland now, where broadband service is a billion times better than what's available in the US or Canada. Limiting the already s**tty service in either country would be quite the awful thing.
Closed AccountAug 10, 2010
@cocopuffz - you don't seem to understand the issue here. The price and quality of broadband in the US aren't affected by this 'proposal' . It has everything to do with setting up a tiered internet where some services/providers/websites will gain preferential access (faster speeds, more thru-put) over others.
Even your assumption that the US has it "so good for so long" is bulls**t. We are in the dark ages compared to Japan and Europe as far as wireless goes.
smackythefrog00Aug 10, 2010
I dunno. Ask the thousands that Digg articles that either praise Android or bash Apple and its iPhone. What will they do now?
I have a Droid, I'm typing this on a MBP, I love my first-gen iPod Touch and my other computer is a PC. So I'm not on anyone's side here.
I was merely pointing out how quickly the tides change on here. If someone were to read the comments and base their ideas off of what Digg, as a whole, believes, then that person must be confused as f**k right now as to whom to "f**k" next.
You can't praise Google for Android, bash Apple for "bulls**tting consumers with their propaganda to pay more for less" and then her the ol' reach around and now start bashing Google for becoming too powerful. It's your bulls**t "propaganda" that most people dislike Apple "blindly," and "blindly" embrace Android without knowing what the f**k it's all about, and finally allowing Google to pull some s**t like this.
f**k it, you all can figure it out. If Facebook, Digg, and Android Forums works for me, the rest of the internet can f**k off for good.
Apple's in bed with AT&T, now Verizon will count the number of wrinkles on the back of Android's scrotum..with its tongue. Keep at it with the "f**k *****."
unknowntargetAug 10, 2010
f**k you Google!
I can't believe I'm saying this, but iPhone/anything not Android, here I come.
crystlAug 10, 2010
benstillergentlemen69@verizon.com
kralAug 10, 2010
Completely unacceptable. Wireless is going to be the big drive and allowing non-neutral behavior on it will wreck the internet and turn it into something akin to TV, which stagnated for some 50 years.