Users who Dugg This
Eric Smith
981 Followers
Derek Ward
2685 Followers
Mark Rosen
3486 Followers
diggorelse
339 Followers
the Grey Ghost of 2010
990 Followers
netneutrality
104 Followers
BeShirtHappy
13460 Followers
madfusion15Aug 13, 2010
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!
elranzerAug 13, 2010
This article is brought to you by those who prefer their lives controlled by
AT&T + Apple
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
Wait a minute, so you're ok with Google and Verizon doing whatever the f**k they want just because you hate AT&T and Apple? Yeah, that makes sense.
craftyguyAug 13, 2010
@jdames1980
I would rather have Google + Verizon doing whatever they want, since Apple + AT&T are already doing that. That's what you call 'competition'Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cynicalbrit94Aug 13, 2010
Note the top right corner of the page with the related articles.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/203113/atandt_loves_the_googleverizon_net_neutrality_pitch.html?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a38:g26:r15:c0.004658:b36491558:z0Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
thefirewireAug 13, 2010
Straw Man argument.
madfusion15Aug 13, 2010
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!
noobpwnyaAug 14, 2010
http://www.nooooooooooooooo.com/
madfusion15Aug 14, 2010
hahah awesome!
postgayAug 13, 2010
Google and Verizon has had a worse week on Digg than Apple. Has hell frozen over?
mabakerbrakerAug 13, 2010
This news is music to my ear, but, PostGay, NONE - I repeat - NONE of Google tainted articles on digg reached nearly as many diggs as the articles promoted by the Google drones about the antenna issue which SOMEHOW did not make the iPhone sell less.
This issue however is being actively burried by some and ironically affects EVERY SINGLE INTERNET USER OUT THERE. Unlike some iPhone defect.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
robweberAug 13, 2010
@mabakerbraker - the iphone may have not 'sold less' (whatever that means, there is really no basis for comparison since a newer iphone was bound to sell more than an older version); however Android still overtook it in overall market share. The s**tty antenna may have had something to do with that.
http://www.electronista.com/articles/10/08/12/analysts.say.android.passing.ios.near.blackberry/
InfinityComplexAug 13, 2010
mabaker, you never answered my WSDL question:
http://digg.com/gadgets/PlayStation_gaming_is_coming_to_Android_3_0?t=34289017#c34289623
chikutenAug 14, 2010
@robweber Your entire comment is kind of off-topic and incorrect in a couple ways. @mabakerbraker was saying that the thousands of "google-drone-dugg" articles on the iPhone 4 defect didn't affect sales, and that it's nice to see an article that impacts us all--"unlike some iPhone defect"--make it through to the front page despite all of the Google fanboys here on Digg.
Also, in the whole AndroidTakesOverApple articles are kind of proof of that. It's a little misleading because the iOS is only on iPhones, while Android is a cross-platform OS on multiple phones from multiple carriers. It even states in your article that Apple sold more phones than they shipped, and you don't need a "basis for comparison" to prove that.
tgc1Aug 13, 2010
No, this happens to every company that reaches a certain size. Inevitably they hire some f**king dufus who doesn't understand how s**t works and this person ends up having a lot of sway in the company and goes forward to try and make their own unique mark. Which inevitably causes a cluster f**k of epic proportions.
blatsekAug 13, 2010
ay yes, the Steve Ballmer spiral
thoricAug 13, 2010
DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sonic11Aug 13, 2010
very well said. but why would Sergey allow for such a calamity to occur?
darkshroudAug 14, 2010
Money.
cockofdoodieAug 13, 2010
You know 2012 is near when Apple and Google are more evil than Microsoft
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
Somebody misinterpreted what's going on and it's spreading like wildfire. Digg is becoming a liberal Fox News.
abram730Aug 16, 2010
Well for all intensive purposes land line have unlimited bandwidth in that you can simply add more cables.. Generally customer bandwidth exceeds web site speeds. So there is no reason for net neutrality to impact a content providers bottom line as long as new cables are being put down at or above growth.
Wireless is a bit different in that bandwidth is fixed.. the other variable is how many people are on each tower... In looking at cost per tower versus tiers and speed fees for web site.. it's clear where they see the money at... wireless Internet is a cash cow...
wireless Internet will be a battle ground for net neutrality as bandwidth is fixed.
It's easy to win an argument about net neutrality with a corporation in relation to their bottom line in regards to landlines... not so easy on wireless as it does affect their bottom line and will more in the future... Will corps be equally effected?
I see this as an ongoing battle.
ImHalfAwakeAug 13, 2010
Say it ain't so!!! f**k you Google!
flashcat7777Aug 13, 2010
Wait, so it's no longer cool to say, "I, for one, welcome our Google overlords"?
linuxbeatswin7Aug 13, 2010
A few years ago when I started posting comments saying that Google is f**king us I would get dugg down so bad. I even lost my digg user name because people thought I was a troll. Now, it's cool to hate on Google, which in my opinion is a brilliant corporation that hides behind a do no evil moniker. I like the free gadgets and stuff but to me they are the new government.
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
But but my Android phone is still better than the iPhone right?
RIGHT???
Please tell me my Android phone is better than the iPhone!?!?
lightspeed10Aug 13, 2010
google tested you idiots. You guys thought "lol google should be president!!!" wow. You idiots honestly wanted an advertising company to run your life? your web browser? your email? your search? your f**king DNS?
you deserve anything that happens to you for supporting that s**tstain company.
enantiodromiaAug 13, 2010
Google is the champion of Openness, am I right?
bjornskiAug 13, 2010
LOL. Yeah, sure.
tunisiano32Aug 13, 2010
They are the champion of evilness too
stiles05sAug 13, 2010
besides your mothers legs?
... I'm sorry
koinekAug 13, 2010
"Don't be evil"
mxm111Aug 13, 2010
I understand Verizon motivation to exclude cell phones from net neutrality (e.g. they do not want skype set up on the phones through wireless - that will eat their margins. I am not saying that they are right, just that I see why Verizon executives think it is right). But Google? What business interest it has to do that? What logic they use to go against their motto of "Don't be evil"?
magus_melchiorAug 13, 2010
Verizon is their biggest partner for Android. If Google lets them do as they wish on mobile, Verizon would probably favor Android handsets, which may be critical as Apple is making moves toward a CDMA iPhone.
That's about it, and it is Eric Schmidt's motivation more than the technologically-inclined folks at Google.
chompyAug 13, 2010
Well for one thing, they could prioritize ads to make them load faster. I know that's what I want my smart phone to become; a streamlined ad-delivery device.
tgc1Aug 13, 2010
Unless...
lightspeed10Aug 13, 2010
unless it makes us more money
-Google inc. GOOG, (NYSE)
ofnumbersAug 13, 2010
*sigh*
I think it's time to set my search default to bing.
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
I tried yesterday... Unfortunately, it didn't last long before I went back to Google.
3nder99Aug 13, 2010
It's sad when I start thinking that Microsoft is a possible alternative to Google.
psypher1Aug 13, 2010
I wouldn't say that...
zerobriersAug 13, 2010
So sad it makes me want to cry.
tukaAug 13, 2010
f**k them all, its time to start private P2P synching web spiders whos results are supplemented by regular old google searches, sent out through random end nodes in TOR fashion.
acknotswAug 13, 2010
Probably pretty damn soon.
machzyAug 13, 2010
As soon as I read those couple articles early this week - I switched mine to Bing right away. Even though Google is blatantly better.
kyzzyxxAug 13, 2010
I will move to Bing or Yahoo and I will tolerate it. Google is better but I will not support this, period. I was going to buy an Android phone next month. Not anymore. Keep it up, Google.
@kinky,
It's selfishness like that which keeps govt and big business f**king people in the ass. Thanks for supporting criminals.
ofnumbersAug 13, 2010
Same here. Every slightly annoyed human who stops using google deflates their absurd stocks, making them stop and think. Until then, Bing's been working fine in conjunction with Wikipedia.
fyuocukAug 13, 2010
yahoo switched recently to using google search as their baseline engine
darkshroudAug 14, 2010
Yahoo Japan switched to Google, the rest of Yahoo will be using Bing as their back end search.
tunisiano32Aug 13, 2010
Done but sometimes I go back to Google if I don't find what I'm looking for in Google. I changed my email from Gmail to GMX.
fatfonzieAug 13, 2010
GMX you say? I think I might try that. I switched to Bing, but wasn't sure how to leave gmail.
darkshroudAug 14, 2010
Open a hotmail account, you can get a new .live address, and then have to load your gmail account. So you can use the new address without loosing the old.
xelodiothAug 13, 2010
I made the switch to DuckDuckGo a while ago. I saw the signs that Google was turning.
Also, DuckDuckGo is ridiculously useful as well as being built with an open source engine XD.
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
You had me until XD
xelodiothAug 14, 2010
Oh man! Well, in all seriousness, it's seriously awesome. For one thing, it has integration with wolfram alpha, so you can type stuff in like "integrate(x^2 + cos(x^(3/2)))" and it will give you the right answer. Also, it has an interesting thing called !bang syntax. To search for youtube videos, using the youtube search, you would type "!youtube {Whatever you want to search for}". It has this for lots of stuff.
In all seriousness, I just like it.
Closed AccountAug 15, 2010
but i mean
isn't that just another intermediate step between you and what you want, if you already know about wolfram alpha and youtube
joemanmanAug 13, 2010
During a class of mine last year I was giving a short presentation and began searching for a video to present via projector. The computers in the lab were defaulted to search via Bing for some reason, and when I typed in my query for the video, I had no fricking idea what anything meant on the screen, mostly perplexed that it wasn't Google that popped up. Other people laughed in confusion, and I immediately proceeded to Bing for "Google" (lots of laughter), and easily grabbed the video from the first hit.
I don't know what the hell Bing is, but I'm sure as hell not using it.
skurtAug 13, 2010
B I N G
I S O O
N T O
G G
L
E
darkshroudAug 14, 2010
That reflects more on you than Bing. Because all of Bing's services besides the main search are much better than Google's.
There also isn't much difference between the two searches, I compare them often.
afunguy24Aug 14, 2010
Or just install ad-block plus.
syntaxgsAug 13, 2010
UH it not that hard too the Topo stands up guy =-P it can do the Right Now And may be An even later,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,see no companye Will stops You now
ems8Aug 13, 2010
this s**t is old
bjornskiAug 13, 2010
Boring. Come up with a new gimmick.
sagegoku666Aug 13, 2010
yawn
929yellowjacketAug 13, 2010
You tell 'em, syntaxgs!
ceryn1126Aug 13, 2010
You should write a book.
siskorabanAug 13, 2010
Derp derp derp? Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrp.
rohksAug 13, 2010
Vintage syntaxgs
shodanxAug 13, 2010
that's going to take some epic PR move to undo all the ill-will caused by this !
thereddarrenAug 13, 2010
I seriously doubt it. It's unfortunate, but it will probably be way too late before the general public start talking about this.
acknotswAug 13, 2010
If ever, this is one of those "technology scary" stories that most people will just gloss over even though it could affect them greatly.
nationalistAug 13, 2010
like what? how? :/
dream0weaverAug 13, 2010
I don't get it, what's the fuss about? I'm trying to keep up with the news, but it's all crammed down that I have no f**king idea what's going on.
YaTiddleAug 13, 2010
Google wants to tier the internet like cable television apparently. It will donate more bandwidth to certain services than others, thus promoting websites it likes and squashing anything it disapproves of. It will maintain a "public" option, but that will likely be choked with slow loading times and advertising. Most of the major sites will be members of the tier system. For example, if you're a gamer you'd buy a gaming package, which would provide faster load times for online play. If you want hd streaming of films, you'd buy the video entertainment package. If you refuse to buy packages your access will be severely limited as the internet becomes more and more data intensive. The "public" option (the internet as we know it today) will become a stagnant wasteland.
Basically Google is making sure the big sites stay big and any innovative efforts have difficulty breaking through the ceiling.
skipdog172Aug 13, 2010
Source? Most of this is just wild assumption.
lightspeed10Aug 13, 2010
read their proposal and the explanation of the proposal, go bing it if you cant find it.
mouse25314Aug 13, 2010
Read the proposal here: http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.google.com/googleblogs/pdfs/verizon_google_legislative_framework_proposal_081010.pdf
Read Google's summary here: http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-for-open-internet.html
It's a framework proposal. Obviously nothing is written in stone, and there are holes and vague points. It's not perfect for everyone, but there are some seriously necessary ideas covered in the proposal.
In response to the above comment, it's very clear from reading the proposal that Google is not supporting tiered internet. You can fill shove words in their mouths and assume that instead of this, they really mean that etc... but at the end of the day, Google has nailed a lot of important net neutrality practices. If we do nothing, we will certainly see these "tiered internet" practices, but most certainly not from Google (although Comcast would be the first to shove their foot in that door".
So skip the speculation and read the damn thing for yourself, not other people's opinions.
YaTiddleAug 13, 2010
I hadn't read the actual proposal yet, and basically paraphrased this article: http://io9.com/5610328/how-the-googleverizon-proposal-could-kill-the-internet-in-5-years?skyline=true&s=i
After looking into your links, it seems that the article was at least partially composed of alarmist ranting. They don't seem to parallel at all, in fact. Maybe there's a kernel of truth in there, though -n perhaps the article is right and Google is just pulling an ol' bait and switch scheme with nebulous buzzwords. It's difficult to tell.
Thank you for helping clarify ( or maybe complicate?) the issue for me. :P
volacideAug 13, 2010
Amen, it's a bunch of f**king nonsense about "don't be evil google," please point me to the evil because I am just not seeing it. All the hysterics is smothering everything else.
elohirAug 13, 2010
This seems like a lot of assumptions to make over one vague and non-commital paragraph at the end of a document. Hellishly biased writing too.
herojonAug 13, 2010
This is what Google actually said:
"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."
This article makes much ado about nothing IMO. It sounds to me like Google, in saying, "we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless," that they are really stating that they still want it someday and just don't believe wireless is ready for it yet.
haz3rdAug 13, 2010
I agree. I see what they are saying about it, but neutrality could also easily sneak away under this rule. We would just have to wait to see what the future holds.
lightspeed10Aug 13, 2010
we dont have to WAIT. we can pass bills before google, an advertising company, lobbies against you, the consumer. unless your a google fanboy, then in that case just sit and wait.
3nder99Aug 13, 2010
"Privacy is incredibly important," Schmidt stated. "Privacy is not the same thing as anonymity. It's very important that Google and everyone else respects people's privacy. People have a right to privacy; it's natural; it's normal. It's the right way to do things. But if you are trying to commit a terrible, evil crime, it's not obvious that you should be able to do so with complete anonymity. There are no systems in our society which allow you to do that. Judges insist on unmasking who the perpetrator was. So absolute anonymity could lead to some very difficult decisions for our governments and our society as a whole."
Enjoy an internet with no anonymity.
"The Associated Press confirmed that Verizon and Google want to allow Internet service providers to charge customers extra for premium services over segregated networks. None of this, they claim, should come at the expense of slowing, blocking or charging to prioritize regular Internet traffic — however that gets defined."
Enjoy having to pay a monthly fee to access certain content, just like HBO or Showtime.
I wonder if the small DSL providers will allow us to unrestricted access to the web.
The Great Firewall of China? Try the Great Paywall of America...
anonymous1986Aug 13, 2010
Eric Schimdt is an obnoxious ****.
innovatiAug 13, 2010
there is no such thing as true anonymity online - the best you can get is appearing as another non-anonymous person.
just the nature of the internet, sorry to burst your bubble…Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pleasejustdieAug 13, 2010
"premium services over segregated networks."
Everyone within wireless tower A's range uses wireless tower A sharing the bandwidth the tower can provide. If a small number of people are using it they could all cap out. If not everyone could get slower speeds.
This sounds to me like offering people the ability to pay more to access a Tower A2 which only people who pay the premium can access.
This lowers the number of people using it and increases their speed. Tower A2 may even have better reliability. Its just giving wireless providers a way to give a tiered internet service plan.
People are making assumptions as to what it could be twisted to mean. In my experience the simplest reason is usually the correct one.
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
Honestly I agree with Schmidt in principle. If there were a way to keep *private* records of essentially everything everyone does on the internet, kept under government lock and key until needed as evidence in investigations of egregious felonies - rape, murder, internet sexual abuse, drug trafficking, human slave trade, etc. - then that would be great. No objections there.
But that's not sustainable. The RIAA/MPAA lobbies would worm their way into it, abuses from single individuals inside and outside of the big network companies would be inevitable, and before long we'd be living in 1984. There's a certain point where we need to stop thinking about what the government (and especially big companies) idealistically should be able to do, and be realistic about what kind of holes will appear in a plan over time.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
thefirewireAug 13, 2010
"kept under government lock and key until needed as evidence in investigations of egregious felonies - rape, murder, internet sexual abuse, drug trafficking, human slave trade, etc. - then that would be great. No objections there."
What?!! are you insane? NO. Look I'm all for using technology to track down the Pedos, Murderers, and Rapist but the Government should not have any control of our private information. Giving a bureaucracy that much power is dangerous. Stances like these are what gave birth to legislation like the Patriot Act.
willrap4pizzaAug 14, 2010
May I introduce you to a website you may or may not have heard of:
http://thepiratebay.org/
And as for the anonymity concerns:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freenet
smacksawAug 13, 2010
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
mabakerbrakerAug 13, 2010
LMAO! You care what THEY said!= Go read some independent research papers about this issue. Maybe start with the eff.org page for once?
magus_melchiorAug 13, 2010
I think I understand the argument-- unlike wired broadband, wireless is still growing and relatively nascent. Yeah, you can do general browsing and email, even stream video wirelessly through cell phone networks, but stuff like Doom3 multiplayer that demands low latency is still iffy.
What they did for wired broadband, though, is pretty significant. Up to this point, ISPs were all but adamant in their desire to put tollbooths on everything, but now Google got Verizon to commit to general neutrality on their wired networks, something Julius Genachowski can't ever claim.
Should they have pressed for firm guidelines for wireless? Sure. But it can easily have been the case that Verizon would have backed out if they had, and we would be back to square one with no commitment to wired neutrality. It's a baby step, but a step forward nonetheless.
kalahan6Aug 13, 2010
What about the whole statement Google and Verizon made a couple of days ago?
Plenty to get pist about.
The proposal they made is fool of loopholes that can be exploited by ISPs
It allows companies like Verizon to do whatever they want and still hide behind a veil of "We support net neutrality"
And why exactly is the wireless broadband so terribly different that net neutrality suddenly isn't an issue?
Why can't it be regulated now? Why do they have to create a proposal that says it shouldn't be regulated before the FCC even opened its mouth.
Net neutrality is one of the most important cornerstones of the internet but for some reason it doesn't apply to the future of the web.
Because that what it is. Wireless broadband is the future and we should protect it now.
I'm sorry but you're wrong. There is plenty to get mad about here.
scientistblahAug 13, 2010
Everyone is making a big f**king deal about nothing. Wired internet will be protected, and the FCC will keep an eye on wireless providers. Chill out, the world is not ending. Things will basically continue to be the exact same as they are now. Stop it with this premature flipping the f**k out. I consider myself a net neutrality advocate but this is getting ridiculous. Google and Verizon propose something that basically keeps s**t the same as it is now. Your wired internet will stay the same, and your wireless data will still be split up into texting data, and browsing data. Being idealistic is great, but be realistic people.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ca1amityAug 13, 2010
"The FCC will keep an eye on wireless providers" Except the FCC will have no regulations to enforce as neutrality provisions wont count and they are limited to quote "case by case" investigations that bog down the speed of a bureaucratic body. This was done on purpose by Google/Verizon.
Furthermore, your assumption that verizon et al who are already engaging in blatant anti-consumer activity *wont* exploit a lack of regulations as hard and as long as they can is idealistic at best.
trainofthought6Aug 13, 2010
It may not seem like much now, but the fact that this deal is being made at all sets a bad stage for net neutrality. This will open the door for ISPs to start taking advantage of all the loopholes in this proposal, all at the consumers' detriment.
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
Actually it would probably mean the end of text messaging plans. The way it's set up now, all the maintenance that goes into the big pipes necessary for browsing is being charged to text users, since texts are still on those pipes too. But SMS adds virtually no traffic compared to browsing. If a separate network was set up for text data only, competition would drop the price to zero within months for all phone companies. It's a good f**king idea, and I am fiercly in favor of net neutrality.
skattertechAug 16, 2010
When did they mention texting having to do with this? As of now, both wired and wireless internet is supposed to be neutral. Google's plan scarifies wireless neutrality for wired, but more and more browsing will be done wirelessly as the tech improves.
This is a really important issue, so please educate yourself. http://skattertech.com/2010/08/how-google-is-trying-to-redefine-net-neutrality/
seraph1982Aug 13, 2010
No, you WANT it to be much ado over nothing, but cutting out wireless devices from Net Neutrality would be a f**king travesty.
newdanAug 13, 2010
Perhaps you think that given the nature of the current marketplace, gutting Net Neutrality from wireless devices wouldn't be that big of a deal. After all, you imply that Google would want Net Neutrality for these devices later, just not now.
Do you really think that Net Neutrality can be brought back as easily as it can be removed?
Once it's gone, kiss it goodbye until a completely different communication network comes along.
jfallon126Aug 13, 2010
True, but this builds the framework for other companies to take a similar approach. Google, as one of the most influential tech companies in the world, is a trend-setter. This is not only a dangerous precedent to be laying down but a complete middle finger to the consumer that flies in the face of their previously stated philosophies.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but: f**k Google.
c010rb1indusaAug 13, 2010
Google is probably the most reputable tech company around since until this. Why would they do this? They already rake in more cash by dominating search. All this does is create bad PR for a company with many tech savy consumers who backlash against anything that isn't open source, and net neutral.
darkshroudAug 13, 2010
Why? Simple Google can make even more money with Android.
Wireless 4G is also starting to take off as well. Wireless 4G WiMax or LTE will probably be the method of delivering high speed internet to "last mile" customers in rural areas.
robweberAug 13, 2010
I think the problem that is creating 'Bad PR' is that online news outlets and crappy writers like this one are making it into a bigger deal than it really is. Read some of the other comments on here (such as herojon's above) to see what the comments google made that are getting everyone all fired up actually say.
wheelingdude86Aug 13, 2010
It's part of a bigger plan
hangman16Aug 13, 2010
Nobody should have ever believed they are the most reputable company. One just needs to read their privacy policy to realize they are only interested in collecting and using data on people. Their privacy policy reads like that of Facebook (and that is not a good thing). They are not around just to make people's lives more convenient for free as many would believe.
thefirewireAug 13, 2010
It's what happens when a company can't hide the fact anymore that they are a corporation instead of idealistic organization. Their bottom line has always weighed more than it's ideals, only now it's so transparent we can see it in broad daylight and people are accusing the company that once touted "Don't be Evil" to be just that.
richitoAug 13, 2010
what happened to "don't be evil"?
darkshroudAug 13, 2010
That was never a public slogan.
ca1amityAug 13, 2010
no, even worse - it was the companies founding principle/motto.
peestandingupAug 13, 2010
To quote a certain Apple CEO, "it's bulls**t".
seltaeb4Aug 13, 2010
But teh uses teh Linux!
masterkenobiAug 13, 2010
Google actually did post something on their blog:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/facts-about-our-network-neutrality.html
anonymous1986Aug 13, 2010
But all the "facts" do not contradict the myths.............
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
Are they saying that...
True net neutrality is pretty much impossible because of politics and that they have a compromise/proposal
If net neutrality is indeed pretty impossible then would this be a good compromise? Can we trust google and verizon!?
myztryAug 13, 2010
Oh, relax. This is getting a movement started which is at least doing something. To roughly paraphrase a quote about a boat passing an island, "those who hesitate and make no decision have just made one.". This is what will happen if nobody makes a move.
Now, think about what "Net neutrality" could entail. It could guarantee access to Internet infrastructure such as in Australia where the Government monopoly Telstra was privatized and it was made mandatory for them to rent their "last mile" of land line at wholesale rates thus guaranteeing access and competition.
Now, put a similar scenario for wireless into your mind. Guaranteed access to a providers infrastructure at a wholesale price with no bias or blockage. That just blows the coverage advantage out of the water, and coverage is everything in the wireless space. Since mobiles phones are ubiquitously becoming "Internet access devices" then if you aren't allowing other to roam onto your towers then you are not being "Net neutral".
Wireless is even trickier because the wireless don't own the "last mile". The government does as spectrum and licenses them to share it. Spectrum is inherently a shared infrastructure. The connection point and the towers become way points which is theory should be unbiased under "Net neutrality".
thereddarrenAug 13, 2010
I agree. Mobile technology changes things. Another thing to consider is traditional phone calls. Now it's not VOIP. but it's still data on the networks right? Can that tech remain reliable to use with out being prioritized? Also, it would be awesome if they couldn't charge more for texting.
juslenAug 13, 2010
Internet access, whether through a cellphone, laptop or PC is not a right.
Net neutrality is a joke. Let the market self regulate, the outcome won't make everyone happy in the short term, but in the long term competition will improve technology and cell phone companies will build the infrastructure to bring service to their customers.
You are not entitled to internet access. You are entitled to spend your own money how you see fit. If companies like Google and Verizon want to restrict peoples options, then the consumer can stop supporting them. l
Regulations don't work, competition works. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
errdayimhustlinAug 13, 2010
"Internet access, whether through a cellphone, laptop or PC is not a right."
This is absolutely true. Having a "right" to a scarce resource means depriving someone else of their right to ownership thus destroying any incentive to create said resource.
theshad0wAug 13, 2010
I have to agree, this is a proposal. By the time it gets to being law it will have passed through at least 50 committees and f**ked up beyond all reason and recognition.
smacksawAug 13, 2010
I would just like to point out yet again that if we, the public, owned all of the spectrum and transmission towers and leased access to whoever wanted to use them, this wouldn't be an issue. DSL works in a similar way and that is fine. People wouldn't be waiting for FIOS or never getting it; we'd run it ourselves.
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
Wireless internet is this the same internet, so the same conditions apply. Period.
anonymous1986Aug 13, 2010
But how else will Google make obscene profits from their Android phone?
mouse25314Aug 13, 2010
From what I understand, and please someone correct me if I am wrong, wireless traffic problems are much different than wired traffic problems. People living in larger cities don't really have congestion problems on their wired networks, but you could imagine what would happen if everyone with a smart phone in New York City tried to download a video at the same time on their phone.
This (at least I believe) is due to physical limitations currently set on wireless networks. Wired technology has been around for much longer, and obviously due to the benefits of having a hard line connection to the internet, you will always have a much stronger connection on your wired devices compared to using wireless internet on devices such as phones. This much is obvious.
I think the idea to not apply every single net neutral practice to wireless networks might work FOR NOW (at least, I hope) because it gives the service providers the ability to ensure that everyone OVERALL is getting the best quality internet access.
For example, lets say you're downloading a video on your phone. At the same time, someone near you is loading a small mobile version of a webpage. Your signal is the same, so you will both get content at the same speeds. However, if you were able to improve your download speed by slightly adjusting the speed at which the mobile webpage loaded, it might make sense to do so. The person loading the webpage won't notice , and you'll be able to get your movie downloaded faster (this is definitely noticeable).
The idea (in theory) is to be able to make sure that companies like Verizon still have the ability to make sure that everyone is getting the best overall quality access to the internet. I imagine that when wireless internet technologies catch up to wired internet, we will need absolute net neutrality for wireless internet. But since they do operate differently in the meantime, their standards need to be slightly different.
Whether or not companies like AT&T and Verizon actually use this framework the way it seems to be intended is an entirely different story however, so I cannot speak for them.
CridynWartaiaAug 13, 2010
I don't really care if special services go vendor specific, or if verizon doesn't want a specific traffic on its services its their phones, let them do what they want. The consumer will sort it out and the bad deals will get weeded out. My problem with this whole thing is that one day, all internet connections to your ISP may very well be wireless. That gives all the power to the ISPs that are currently expected to be "open".Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
negative4Aug 13, 2010
Regulate this ..I..
blklightningAug 13, 2010
took a few seconds, but i see what you did there.
lxcidAug 13, 2010
You forgot to mention AT&T
glimp7Aug 13, 2010
And "AT&T loves the Google-Verizon Pitch?" Maybe they do atm, but this means Verizon Android phones will have the best (fastest streaming) Youtube experience of any other device. With Verizon getting the iPhone soon (crossing fingers for January), it's looking worse by the day for AT&T's wireless services. They're just bluffing...
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
astrixxAug 13, 2010
Pretty obvious now that google is onboard with the new world order agenda.
nopctodayAug 13, 2010
i dont see the big deal TBH.
you know, they didn't include wireless regulartion is proabably they are structurally different. wired and wireless networks need their own net neutrality rules with the same big principal. Google and verizon are probably working on the wireless one right now.
gigasquidAug 13, 2010
There's only two reasons Google and Verizon are in bed together: Money and Control. Nothing more, nothing less. The spin by Google has started already...what good guys they are, how good this will be for everyone...blah, blah blah. Horse Sh*it (CEO, CFO) of Google. You ain't kidding anyone.
You may be big corporations but there's a long way to fall and fall you will if you continue with this BS.
glendowerAug 13, 2010
You can say s**t on digg. The internet police won't come after you.
Google might.
blklightningAug 13, 2010
looks like it's back to yahoo! search for me. eat s**t, google.
the partnership with a major telecommunications company should have been a big enough red flag, though. pretty obvious this wasn't going to be for the best interest of the consumer.
machzyAug 13, 2010
So much for 'Don't be evil'.
And I remember a few months ago when Steve Jobs said we all shouldn't believe the BS that Google is sending out about not being evil. I hated him for saying that.
But now, as much as I don't wanna say it - Jobs was right....
juslenAug 13, 2010
And what makes Google evil? Sorry that you feel you are entitled to something. This will all end when your hard earned money is worth little or nothing. The government won't have the resources to regulate private businesses large or small. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
machzyAug 13, 2010
I should've made my statement less ambiguous.
That statement was more for what Eric was talking about a few days ago with Privacy & Anonymity. Trying to play off that it would be better for crime & etc. if there was less privacy online and not making it out to be anything beneficial for Google.
diggydougieAug 13, 2010
I once heard a Google representative in an interview clear up the evil controvosy with the argument that "don't be evil" is only a suggestion.
thefirewireAug 13, 2010
By them saying it's only a "suggestion" sort of implies an underlying admission of guilt? Meaning during spurts of good public relations don't be evil is touted to be just one of their long lists of brilliant philosophies but during bad spurts of PR when their bottom line actually outweighs their ideals its just a "suggestion"
diggydougieAug 17, 2010
I would think it's just that. Only a suggestion. Meaning when faced with a conflict of using your power or having integrity you should TRY to not be evil. But sometimes the temptation is just too strong and you do what you want to do.
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
PcWorld is like the smutty tabloid of Computer/Tech news as of late. Over the last year I can't help but notice their articles and editorials have become progressively s**ttier.
decoy26517Aug 13, 2010
Google and Verizon are free to do their business there way. You are free to do business with them or not. If you don't like what they do use someone else's service or better yet, get off your lazy ass and compete with them yourself. Stopping or preventing them from doing business there way infringes on their rights and is illegal.
Freedom is a 2 way street. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
Yes, because it's totally feasible to start your own wireless company to compete with Verizon.
miskaoneAug 13, 2010
Vote with wallet my friend. You did not have these services 5 years ago. its conceivable that you can do without wireless internet services now. Free market is more readily shaped by the customer purchase power not by power of complaint.
alarchyAug 13, 2010
ISPs and Google provide services to access or services for a public resource (the Internet - which we as taxpayers paid for, both development of and infrastructure). Allowing multi-billion dollar corporations to dictate the terms of use of a public resource solely by themselves (with no input from the public) is corporate fascism, not freedom.
miskaoneAug 13, 2010
Year Right, So all those towers and technologies were developed by the federal government, Al Gore invented the internet and the world is rapidly warming from Green house gases.
Dude, other than licensing the spectrum the government had little to do with the actual infrastructure. If they did it would be the government issue with allocating resources to "corporate fascism" your comment is juvenile at best.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
alarchyAug 13, 2010
Local and federal government has helped subsidize almost every single piece of fiber, coax, etc laid in the nation. They also continually subsidize them by granting monopolies to the provider that agreed to lay the infrastructure (that the governments helped pay for), along with tax breaks. This is common knowledge. Now the federal government has set aside tons of stimulus money to pay ISPs to run cable/fiber to rural areas. The Internet was also part of a DoD project, and not privately funded or created.
Cell towers are a different beast, granted - but considering the public controls all transmissions (FCC)...
dymoAug 13, 2010
You do understand this is a proposal and not law correct? This is something to set wheels turning which have not done anything in years.
Having a plan of attack is always better than flying by the seat of your pants. This plan is something tangible for the govt to work with.
I do think that wireless networks need a different set of neutrality laws due to the inherent infrastructure differences between wired and wireless. That is exactly what google/verizon are going for.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/facts-about-our-network-neutrality.htmlComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
u2canfailAug 13, 2010
Actually no, Verizon is the only wireless service in many almost rural areas. ONLY ATT loves cities big markets only, TMobile can't compete, Sprint is way behind, am I back to landline?
libertyprimeAug 13, 2010
Can't someone maybe buy out all the ISPs and just form one mega network?
b3n87Aug 13, 2010
I personally agreed with the Wireless side of the proposal - its an emerging market, still maturing. As long as the FCC can keep an eye on it, and the networks are open with how they plan on dealing with the traffic, it will be OK.... for now.
lorensingleyAug 13, 2010
DOWN WITH VEROOGLE!!!
euclioAug 13, 2010
Sounds like a cross between a race car and a jalopy.
VRRRRRRRR... OOGLE
thefirewireAug 13, 2010
I like Goorizen better
giz0rAug 13, 2010
What, is this "Aliens vs. Predator" thing? WHO EVER WINS, WE LOSE.
But then again, in the end we kinda won. So who cares.q
miskaoneAug 13, 2010
Net Neutrality on the surface is legit. But what burns me is articles like this that try to supplant the initiative with Socialistic political movements to blame all corporations for being evil customer hating demons. Reality is that people buy they provide, people do not buy they find other things to sell.
I am completely happy with my service, is it expensive, yes, do I have services that did not exist 5 years ago yes. Do I think service can get better, Yes. This is not going to happen for free...
Do I expect to get the same access to NPR video of Hugo Chavez make out with Sean Penn as the access to the World Cup...NO.
berglar87Aug 13, 2010
Yeah I was considering getting an android phone then I thought to myself "f**k Google!" Tie that with leaving Verizon and I'll be a much happier person. $30 dollars for data you say?? Don't forget about $15 upgrade fee or the fact that we'll rob you blind if you ever leave us, but hey.. they're here to provide the best service (my ass..). I sell Verizon wireless and I'm not hesitant to say that you can get a much better deal elsewhere.
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
Every 2 years I go into a Verizon store to get a new phone. In the past they've typically given $100 towards a new phone when you renew your contract and the phone selections always provided something better than what you currently had. Since the last time I've upgraded my phone, they've dropped the $100 incentive down to $50 and the selection of basic has become total crap. If you want any decent phone they now "require" a $10 data plan which doesn't even cover texting. What a bunch of f**kheads. I walked out of the store without renewing my contract or getting a new phone. Funny enough, I know 3 other people who all did the same exact thing.
chokeaduckAug 14, 2010
You do realize AT&T basically did the same thing, right?
juslenAug 13, 2010
Regulation doesn't work.
Competition works.
r0g3rAug 13, 2010
Yeah, competition prevents oil spills, pollution, bad housing loans and all the other evils companies perpetrate against the public. Companies don't need anyone watching over them, competition will keep them clean.
juslenAug 13, 2010
And government prevents oil spills, pollution, band housing loans and all the other evils?
Government regulations did not stop the BP oil spill, more regulations will not stop another oil spill. Who regulates the regulators?
Pollution is one area in which government regulations can help keep your back yard cleaner. Yet pollution regulations also increase the costs for companies to do business. In a global economy with a global market, those who create jobs will always follow the path of least resistance. So they take jobs overseas to countries like India and China which have less strict pollution regulations. The government just subsidized pollution overseas and sent jobs overseas.
There were multiple government regulations in place to stop bad housing loans. Any time you put up a regulation, people find a legal short cut. Not only that, but the government, which creates such regulations does so in their own self interest. Which means a politician will create regulations only if they are beneficial to their campaigns. And big corporations and lawyers have lobbyists for a reason.
In the end, there is no perfect fix, there is no ultimate solution. Competition in a free market is the most efficient means of regulating private business. The key is not telling a big corporation what they can't do, its simply allowing a big corporation to compete with other smaller businesses or other corporations.
PB did not uphold their end of the bargain with the consumers. They relied on government regulations to get a free pass. They neglected to monitor their oil wells for the interest of keeping them running smooth, efficiently and safely. Their mistakes along with the failures of government regulations led to an oil spill which they must now pay for.
Their competitors now have to take a lesson from PB and make sure the same thing doesn't happen to them. Or else they could be the next ones who end up losing billions.
Competition works better than government regulations. Because consumers are the ones doing the regulating, not some pencil pushes in an office who is more than likely checking their facebook page at the cost of taxpayers money.
Learn a bit about basic economics then feel free to digg me down further :P
r0g3rAug 13, 2010
Consumers can't know what companies are really doing with regards to things like pollution, you need actual oversight to even know how much pollution a company is generating. There are back ends to all industries where the public would never know what's going on. There are all kinds of underhanded ways for companies to pull the wool over the eyes of the public, and therefore you can't depend on public opinion to keep corporations in check. Corporations have huge power, and that power needs checks, or it harms those with less power time and again. You're talking about protecting the profit margins of companies like BP that have outrageous profit margins to begin with. There needs to be checks and balances to protect the people from the power of these entities, period. Regulation isn't going to kill companies like BP that make billions of dollars every quarter by raping our natural resources.
christmaspooAug 13, 2010
Tell that to Enron
juslenAug 13, 2010
Tell them what? Bad business decisions lead to bankruptcy? Yeah, I think their competitors won on that one.
Let that be a lesson to the next Enron and those who blindly invest their life savings into one company.
Furthermore, how would government regulations have prevented Enron from making bad choices? Create a regulation, someone will find a way around it. Make a new regulation, someone will find a way around it. Keep making regulations until a company like Enron has no other alternative than to not do something illegal. That still doesn't mean they wont go bankrupt due to bad business decisions and investments.
And on top of that, how will these new regulations be enforced? Who regulates the regulators? And how many other companies out there will be adversely affected by these new regulations? Because in the end, regulations don't always prevent people from breaking the law, they also prevent other business from entering the market or competing because regulations cause the cost of doing business to increase.
Regulations require oversight.. which means a company has to hire more and more people just to check more and more people. Its an endless cycle that results in everyone trying to cover their asses at the expense of higher costs which get passed down to the consumer which directly affect their ability to do business. Which once again.. means people either break the law in order to sty ahead, or they will work to change the laws to favor them or protect them.
And *GASP* some of these businesses may simply cease to exist, move overseas or downsize or completely change all together and enter a different market thus jobs being lost.
1 Enron pales in comparison to the alternatives which I stated above.
r0g3rAug 13, 2010
But for the individuals responsible for Enron it only meant golden parachutes. The individuals didn't have to bear any responsibility, the corporation went bankrupt, not them. They are doing just fine. Because criminally running a company into the ground can be quite profitable.
r0g3rAug 13, 2010
Oops, It appears I misspoke, the Enron scandal has been out of my mind for quite some time. I guess the guilty parties are rightly serving time, or dead.
r0g3rAug 13, 2010
Hey Google: "Don't be evil motherf**kers!"
useragainAug 13, 2010
You guys, as always, are over-reactive idiots. Google FTW.
darkshroudAug 14, 2010
Try again, some people are just realizing how much power or sway Google has and it's scared them. People already went through this over a decade ago with Microsoft. The only different is MS doesn't pretend they are about anything but business.
Google will track & data mine you anyway then can if you allow it. And many of us who have spoken out against this were buried into hell, called every name under the sun, and had people try to rape us with straw men.
lyenlionAug 13, 2010
Can someone explain whats going on, i don't get it.
Are they like restricting what we can and cant do while on a verizon network or something google related?
or there making you pay more for less internet?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
trainofthought6Aug 13, 2010
Read up on Net Neutrality.
angelbunnyAug 13, 2010
This article is bulls**t. If you look at history, not to long ago in the 90s cable ISPs ran like wireless ISPs today. There was no speed tiers. The speed you got back then was whatever was available at the time on the pipe. So in the middle of the day you might of gotten 300kB/s but at night you could easily get 700kB/s.
During this time in internet history ping times never jumped. You could easily play a first person shooter and the ping time was lower hitting the backbone than it is for ISPs today because there was less filtering and obstruction making sure everyone gets an even piece of the pie. In fact, the only time ping times jumped up is if something you needed streaming required more bandwidth than what was available to you. So, if 300kB/s where available to you at the time but the streaming view required 400kB/s your ping would spike.
What wireless ISPs are currently trying to do is push out every kB/s like it matters so friggen much. This removes error correction packets raising ping time unless you have a perfect signal. In other words, if you loose just 1 packet on AT&T while that wireless tower is maxed out then there is a 10 second delay before that packet is resent causing large latency and high frustration. If they increased the error correction rate to once every 100ms, sure peoples internet would max out at around 20kB/s lower but it would act like 1megabit/s dsl back in the day. No delays even when the wireless tower is being abused to an oblivion.
I don't really want to echo conspiracy theories here but AT&T does intentionally f**k with their wireless protocol intentionally making it bad for its users. On slashdot months ago there was a 10+ page article explaining to the finest details exactly how they where doing it. I think the wireless companies are intentionally f**king over their users and then blaming it on net neutrality. It is one of the simpler rules of politics. f**k something up and then blame it on the other guy. The ignorant masses will know no better.
danwgreAug 13, 2010
Where is your god now!!!!
nationalistAug 13, 2010
huh?
rahylAug 13, 2010
The free market only works when you're willing to walk away and spend your money elsewhere. If Google, Verizon, the iPhone 4, etc, are all so bad, grow a pair of balls and walk away. Don't act like a five-year-old and start crying because your shiny new toy doesn't do what you wanted it to. Don't be so insistent that you be the first-on-your-block to own the latest and greatest. Why do you people rely so much on these things for your own sense of identity?
You aren't going to melt if you see an early termination fee on your contract and decide not to sign it.
You aren't going to melt if you wait until they work out these problems before you buy.
In our economic system, YOU have the choice to buy or not. When you choose 'no', you have a far greater affect than when you snivel and whine to lawmakers.
ca1amityAug 13, 2010
The free market only works like you say when theres actual competition providing real alternatives.
In the majority of first world society broadband internet and wireless communication have become as "necessary" to daily life as motorized transport and the land-line telephone.
So if we accept that most people need a cell phone (and avoid the argument about "real" vs perceived needs) lets go to the American free market system to buy one following your rules:
"You aren't going to melt if you see an early termination fee on your contract and decide not to sign it".
Yes, but you still need a phone and every player in the market operating a modern (read: usable/reliable/technologically current) network has an ECF. The free hand of the market now has no power - companies provide something you need, none do it right and youre *forced* to submit to one.
"You arent going to melt if you wait until they work out these problems before you buy"
What problems? The network quality issues? Or, do you mean the net neutrality stuff?
Even assuming you say "I 100% dont need a cell phone and never will" if you just wait to enter the market youll be buying your first phone in 20 years.
"In our economic system, YOU have the choice to buy or not. When you choose 'no', you have a far greater affect than when you snivel and whine to lawmakers."
When you want or need an item in the marketplace but everyone producing that good/service does so in a way thats punitive for the consumer, and they all collude to do it as a matter of profitability, *who* you choose to buy from is irrelevant as you will be treated poorly everywhere.
This is the point that government regulation of free enterprise becomes necessary.
paraboleeAug 13, 2010
I think most people are over reacting to this. To be fair, I did too at first, mainly because the way it was first leaked sounded much worse than the reality. I think it's fair to give Google's side of the argument a chance -
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/facts-about-our-network-neutrality.html
I think Google's intentions may be good, they have always been proponents of an open internet.
The issue rational people are taking is that if this is adopted by the FCC as a compromise to true Net Neutrality, it may just open the door for serious abuses of the system later down the line. I don't like the "wait and see" approach to wireless internet. And I don't like the suggestion by Google and Verizon that there is a "public" and "private" internet. The delivery of internet data is all PUBLIC, only the data being delivered can be private.
Those taking issue with this have very good points. Those saying Google are being evil, are over reacting.
readmeAug 13, 2010
Steve Jobs makes blog posts too. This does not change anything.
blatsekAug 13, 2010
When will you guys realize that wireless is not the same as wired. It doesn't nearly have the capacity. They want phone calls to be a higher priority than your funny youtube video. It will always have to be this way. It makes sense too. Imagine downloading too much at home and your TV doesn't work because they use the same cable. Now that sounds awesome. Same with wireless. Relax guys. Get off your high horse. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
darkshroudAug 14, 2010
Wireless isn't just phones, WiMax also counts as wireless not to mention mobile hot spots. In rural areas the only way people will be able to get off dial-up cheaply is if Clear or some other company shows up and puts in these high speed wireless networks. WiMax can also be upgraded through software to LTE. Eventually Verizon will be moving to LTE for their "4G" network.
ieatskunkAug 13, 2010
Verizon is the enemy of humanity.
digitaiunicornAug 13, 2010
Google's motto: "Don't be evil"
the3rdlegionAug 13, 2010
Noooooooo, this is the one time that I will actually cry...when Google becomes evil it's all over.
/cry
jeritron90Aug 13, 2010
And then they will turn into Skynet?
twinklyjesusAug 13, 2010
If Google and Verizon lose, we all lose too. Either way, the taxpayer will lose. If net neutrality succeeds in establishing precedent for the FCC to have jurisdiction over the internet, they will also gain control of cable television and satellite radio. Currently, there is legislation in Congress on the taxation of the internet and non "broadcast" services. How do you think they will be able to control, monitor and oversee, for tax purposes, the internet activity? The FCC will work in conjunction with the Treasury Department to enforce the soon to be new tax laws on the internet.
The trick here is misdirection. You are being misdirected to rail against the evil corporations who are trying to cheat you out of your bandwidth, while, in reality, you are willing giving up free speech by fighting to allow the FCC (Federal Government) to have control of the internet. Currently the FCC can only regulate and enforce services BROADCAST through the air. This is why HBO and other cable only services can get away with the Fword, nudity, etc., and NBC, ABC and CBS can't.
You guys need to wake up and see the big picture. FCC regulation is not going to grant you more freedom, it's going to take away your freedom.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.