Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Mr. Baby Man
26700 Followers
Rajasekaran
657 Followers
Vignesh Kumar R
1799 Followers
Jovan Maric
817 Followers
Akhtar Sheikha
2238 Followers
AngelWardriver
11956 Followers
Skateboarding
6163 Followers
Super Saiyan
1769 Followers
seltaeb4Aug 10, 2010
But. . . but . . . Google's motto is "do no evil," and they uses teh Linux!
bjornskiAug 11, 2010
I've been saying for a long time that all it would take is a enough decimal places on the check, and they would gladly become very evil.
dmattsonAug 11, 2010
"do no evil", money, "do no evil", money, "do no evil", money, "do no evil", money, money, money, money, money
Google is a public company, its priority, make money? Everything Google has done so far, yes even the "do no evil" mantra is to help it make more money. That should not be surprising right? They make more money then a lot of state collect as taxes, and all of it just on one product, Google search.
One lesson I learned long back is take everything Google says with a grain of salt, they have the absolute best PR department in the world.
Having monopolies around is always a bad idea, MS, IBM, GM are all excellent examples, Google is no different. I would really like to see Google get some real competition and unfortunately the only real competition they have is Bing, which is pretty close behind in terms of search quality but way behind in terms of market and mind share. I use http://qrobe.it it is a nice compromise.
mondaynitesAug 11, 2010
By no means did GM have a monopoly. And what happened to MS and IBM? Aside from Bill Gates donating HALF OF HIS MONEY TO CHARITY?
diggduggjoeAug 11, 2010
It comes down to consumers with balls. If you are willing to switch to Bing or Ask, you will have power. If you demand net neutral connections, you will have power.
If you choose to let the government enforce neutrality, good luck with that. Someone will pay them enough to screw you.
If you truly wish to have the power, you must wield it personally. You must be the willing to tell them to f**k off. If your position is to only screw you in the ass gently, then you have already lost.
Closed AccountAug 11, 2010
I wonder how the Fandroid douchebags feel now about Google, that used to not impose any rules on the the bratty spoiled overgrown children that promote Google/Android, unlike that evil Apple.
Google is just another corporation, acting in its own best interest, not yours.
bjornskiAug 11, 2010
They'll be loving it, because their toys will get highest priority over everyone else.
tk0680Aug 11, 2010
I have a love/hate relationship with people's absurdly simplistic view of this. Apparently there's nothing between being a perfectly ethical company and raping babies for an extra $5 a week. Good or evil!
Yes, Google are driven by money. The question is to what levels will they stoop for it? The same as Apple? Microsoft? Lower than both? Higher than both?
It's a dead horse where Digg is concerned, but the world isn't black and white.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lightspeed10Aug 11, 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv4j4bguYYk
its ok guys, lets continue using an advertiing company' email and phone OS. oh maybe also let them control my DNS, let them be my web browser which pings everything back to google... etc.
yes there are people who use chrome, an advertising company's web browser.
did i mention google want to exclude wireless internet from any net neutrality proposal in the future? hence to deal personal information would be much easier this way.
casspaAug 10, 2010
I don't understand, why Google?
danielphermousAug 11, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
bjornskiAug 11, 2010
Money.
Closed AccountAug 11, 2010
Short answer : Money.
Longer answer - because they can make more money off of Android with this model. Ad revenue is peaking for Google, Android is their next cash cow.
bjornskiAug 11, 2010
And anyone who buys one of those is helping destroy net neutrality and usher in the tiered-internet, helping to kill the net as we know it.
Good job, fanbois.
aplusjimagesAug 11, 2010
Sorry bjornski. I thought I was getting a nice phone, not destroying the net as we know it.
Commented via HTC Incredible
lemonseamonkeyAug 11, 2010
Wow bjornski, way to spam this thread with over-sensationalist shouts of internet apocalypse.
Trust me, I don't like the way this looks, but stop being that guy who stands on a corner yelling about how the free masons are coming to take away your family.
seanwuzhereAug 11, 2010
Evidently their popularity is about to peak as well. Looks like I'll be switching back to Yahoo as my default homepage. Or heck, Bing sounds pretty good right about now.
deathweaver108Aug 11, 2010
If it was money then why walk away from China on principle?
valiantheartAug 11, 2010
China was employing its own hackers against Google-China rather continuously.
It's 'ok' to help in human rights violations but if the Chinese want them trade secrets its time to pull out.
lightspeed10Aug 11, 2010
because you are gullible enough to continue using them.
its ok, Go use an advertising company's phones! let them read your email! let them know what videos you watch on youtube, they keep your search queries forever. and now they will deal your personal information at a whim to 3rd parties.
oh and they are excluding wireless internet from net neutrality proposals.
propheticevilAug 11, 2010
Is it really that bad to have advertisements tailored to you? I didn't know that finding out more things that interest you specifically is such a bad thing.
shutaroAug 10, 2010
Yes.
tacosdudeAug 10, 2010
Of course it's bad for net neutrality. No one should ever be surprised if a multi-billion dollar corporation throws any philosophy they have previously gone by out the door knowing they have MANY years of future obligations to their stockholders.
bjornskiAug 11, 2010
Just like Wal-Mart threw out their whole "Only products made in America" motto as soon as the kids took over and wanted to chase the profits, Google threw their old mantra out the window when the wheelbarrow of cash just got to be too big to ignore.
Closed AccountAug 10, 2010
There could always be an upstart that dethrones Google.
insomn3akAug 11, 2010
Not likely, and especially not if this happens.
Closed AccountAug 11, 2010
DARK WALLPAPERS- http://darkwallz.blogspot.com
HIGH QUALITY DARK WALLPAPERS.........DARKWALLZ
davidtcAug 11, 2010
It probably is for the net neutrality we all want, but at the same time it is probably better than what we would get if AT&T, Comcast and those in the government who vote by bribes have their say.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
digg2point0Aug 11, 2010
There is no such thing as "the net neutrality we all want".
There is net neutrality, and non-neutral net.
There is no middle ground on this. As soon as one site/service has priority, the neutrality is gone.
davidtcAug 11, 2010
"There is no such thing as "the net neutrality we all want"."
So you don't want true net neutrality? I know I sure do and I'm sure most others do. Not sure why there is no such thing as that though.
wilhoitmAug 11, 2010
Steve Jobs was right! Google is...
starrodkirbyAug 16, 2010
is... something.
wilhoitmAug 17, 2010
Evil!
superkendallAug 11, 2010
Real net neutrality is all about not LIMITING traffic of any type.
It says nothing about being able to PRIORITIZE traffic of specific types.
If a carrier wants to be able to prioritize traffic from Yahoo, I say go ahead - as long as you do not slow down any content, including bittorrent traffic.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 11, 2010
Ummmm, prioritizing traffic for one service (i.e. Yahoo) means everything else goes slower - including bittorrent.
digg2point0Aug 11, 2010
Congratulations on not knowing what Net Neutrality is.
belebihAug 11, 2010
"as long as you do not slow down any content, including bittorrent traffic"
What do you think prioritize means? In order to make something faster you either have to slow down everything else a little bit or slow down one or two things a lot (like competitors, and all those bad bad pirates using torrents).
robdiggityAug 11, 2010
I am worried about your brain.
seriouzbidnezzAug 11, 2010
We shouldn't LIMIT the power of corporations to PRIORITIZE profits over good public policy.
p522Aug 11, 2010
I never found Google to be neutral when Wikipedia links are at the top of just about every search list and they sold BP the top ranking early on for searches about the oil spill.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
scootingerAug 11, 2010
How is Google not being neutral by selling BP the top Adwords spot? BP (or any other company) offers a bid to Google for the top spot and Google accepts it. They would be being biased if they specifically decided not to sell BP that spot. BP is paying them lots of money for the ad spots, and so are other companies and organizations who are purchasing ads on Adwords to promote their product/agenda that is somehow related to the oil spill. Read about how Adwords works if you aren't familiar.
And the reason that Wikipedia articles are typically on the top is because a s**tload of people use and link to such articles, allowing them to rank very highly. (Read about the PageRank algorithm if you aren't familiar.) I don't see whose interests Google would be defending anyway in the scenario you describe, since much of the info in (for instance) BP's WP article probably contradicts the info on their propaganda website.
Google cannot specifically alter their search algorithm, even when it's in their best interest. For instance, go search for "jew"...among the top search results are Jew Watch and a couple of other anti-semitic websites. There's also an Adwords link to a Google page explaining why that happened and why Google can't do anything about it.
mondaynitesAug 11, 2010
Learn how Google search works, and that is TOTALLY not what the article is about. Even if Google did put Wikipedia at the top because they were paid to (no, it's because that page has more links to it), they can do whatever the f**k they want because YOU USE IT FOR FREE.
What I'm trying to say is that whatever Google's website does has nothing to do with Net Neutrality, but what the ISP does with Google, does.
lightspeed10Aug 11, 2010
monday, you dont use it for free. theres no such thing as a free lunch. this type of mentality is so wrong and stupid, you should never log in ever again.
You are trading your personal data and being tracked in exchange for using their search engine. There are other search engines available at the click of a button. Google is not exclusive to providing a free service. but its ok, go buy an advertising company's phone, or go use an ad company's email. An Ad company would then be responsible for running 90% of your life if you use android and gmail.
nitrologlyAug 11, 2010
With corporations there is no good or evil, they simply will get as big and as powerful as possible but it is up to our government to protect us from these corporations doing unjust and unlawful things. Now if the corporations run the government is where we get into some trouble...
aplusjimagesAug 11, 2010
But that will nev... oh s**t!
insicknessAug 11, 2010
So, let me get this straight.
1. You currently subscribe to an ISP (like Verizon) to get internet access.
2. Internet bandwidth is always increasing. These increases are necessary to carry increased content which is always requiring more and more bandwidth.
3. This agreement says that the internet *as it is* will not be degraded to allow specific corporations who pay more to get better service/bandwidth. But...
4. Google and Verizon have just made an agreement that in the future, it's okay for certain companies to pay more to get increased service/bandwidth.
How is that not completely compromising net neutrality?
shogiAug 11, 2010
Because of rule number 3. Everyone will still have the same neutral access, BUT if you pay extra for an additional package which is separate from baseline access, some companies stuff will download faster.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
masterchiAug 11, 2010
How can they do that? If i'm a web host owner and i pay for a 100mb thoroughput (lets just say that top of the line) then they won't be slowing me down one bit if i refuse to pay there "bandwidth tax". I'll still have the fastest server at 100mb (just an example that its top of the line). Also, on the other hand, how can me pay there "bandwidth tax" make my 10mb web host any faster unless they give me a bigger pipe to host my site on. This is a little confusing.
shogiAug 11, 2010
You're not understanding. The extra fee has NOTHING to do with how your web experience will behave. It's when your provider offers a special package that does not fall under the realm of their general access, like a special 3d movie streaming service or something.
venom8599Aug 11, 2010
@MasterChi
They wouldn't be pitching a "bandwidth tax" option to just everyone for general web use. What happens is the ISP wants to roll out a new service, and they'll set aside a dedicated portion of their pipe to a subscriber's home in order to provide the customer with that service. Say, if they wanted to stream all MLB games in HD to some set top device they sold on demand. That traffic would then go over its own dedicated connection, undisturbed by any other traffic on the user's broadband connection.
venom8599Aug 11, 2010
Net Neutrality has nothing to do with the amount of bandwidth you get for what amount of money. Net Neutrality is just about making sure that you can use the bandwidth that you decide to pay for in whatever way that you choose, using applications and devices you choose without them being blocked, throttled, or unfairly gimped by QoS prioritization of your ISP's (or it's business partners') services to the detriment of their competitors.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
galevisAug 11, 2010
And that is exactly what this proposal states.
insicknessAug 11, 2010
So what's to stop Verizon offering you an upgrade from your current 10 mbps to 50 mbps that explicitly excludes p2p traffic? That's pretty much the same thing.
venom8599Aug 11, 2010
@insickness
You really should read the proposal, or at least some of the explanation articles of it. There is a section on non-discrimination, which includes both blocking and prioritization. They would both be against the rules, with the FCC examining it on a case by case basis (with cases kicked off by actual consumer complaints) and fining bad actors up to $2 Million plus providing injunctive relief.
zeitgeist6149Aug 11, 2010
Also the contract stipulates that net neutrality only applies to wired internet. Wait for VZ's LTE to launch in the next couple years and nobody will have wired internet any longer.
They created a rule to please us for now, knowing full well the rule will be as useful in two years as a rotary phone is now.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
shogiAug 11, 2010
Better analysis/breakdown:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/
It's not nearly as bad as it sounds, it just allows them to provide extra services with higher network priority, so long as it's "separate and distinct" from default access. They're still insisting that regular traffic is not discriminated.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
shogiAug 11, 2010
You have to remember that the whole point is to get providers on board with providing net-neutral access to everyone, even if you have to cut them a few breaks to get them at the table. And particularly with wireless data, you have to prioritize traffic so smartphone users surfing the web don't pull down so much data that voice service gets slowed or disrupted for others.
digg2point0Aug 11, 2010
"so long as it's "separate and distinct""
So in otherwords, 'separate but equal'?
Didn't we try something like that in America with a certain type of people? That worked out well, didn't it?
venom8599Aug 11, 2010
Someone really needs a thesaurus...
digg2point0Aug 11, 2010
Maybe not the best snippet to quote, but the point still stands.
Pretending to make something "equal" by having it separate is a farce.
If one type of traffic -- special, unique, separate, whatever you want to call it -- is prioritized over another, that's going to slow everything else down. That is the opposite of Net Neutrality.
venom8599Aug 11, 2010
Yeah.. Except, the services aren't going to be equal. They're going to be distinct. Much in the same way that POTS is distinct from ADSL, or CATV is distinct from the broadband access that uses the very same cables.
shogiAug 11, 2010
Wow, good job twisting my words. You'd make a great politician. Or journalist.
digg2point0Aug 11, 2010
"Yeah.. Except, the services aren't going to be equal. They're going to be distinct. Much in the same way that POTS is distinct from ADSL, or CATV is distinct from the broadband access that uses the very same cables."
How do you propose feeding these "distinct" services without affecting someone on the same line?
(Hint: You can't.)
dustin00Aug 11, 2010
It's the corporate slippery slope which they LOVE to use... "first one is free".
They'll add a "bonus feature" to more and more things that move them into the controlled channel. They'll have a license to say "see... the internet is still neutral" thanks to Google handing it to them.
Remember when there USED to be all-you-can-download plans on cell phones? Yeah. That.
zeitgeist6149Aug 11, 2010
Wait for when we start dealing exclusively with wireless internet and nobody opts to get the fiber optic Google lays down because they get that OTA already.
Then that deal they cut goes right out the window. VZ doesn't have to offer its users access to the public internet for wireless users, only wired.
futurepastnowAug 11, 2010
"We've made too many compromises already; too many retreats. They invade our space and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further! And I will make them pay for what they've done!"
I'm pretty sure Picard was talking about Verizon and net neutrality when he said that.
cubicledroneAug 11, 2010
Take away the monopolies.
Light all the dark fiber in this country.
Require telecom companies to either spend the money they were given by the government to build new infrastructure or return it, with interest.
If they return it, give the money to start-ups to build more network infrastructure.
Net neutrality is no longer an issue. The only thing that makes net neutrality an issue is monopolies. When the monopolies go away, the problem goes with them.
bjornskiAug 11, 2010
Best post in the thread.
Closed AccountAug 11, 2010
except it's not a monopoly if more than one company is doing it...
bjornskiAug 11, 2010
You're right. It's collusion.
krandenAug 11, 2010
Exactly, if you keep away ugly monopolies the free market will regulate itself effectively. If one company decides to screw over its customers and another doesn't the customers will speak with their dollars and change companies.
bjornskiAug 12, 2010
And if the companies decide to team together to screw everyone, well, we're f**ked.
venom8599Aug 11, 2010
I think the thing a lot of people get confused about is the term speed, when thinking of Net Neutrality, and bandwidth in general. Speed is not the (kilo-, mega-, or giga-)bits per second measure--that's actually capacity. Speed is latency. The current way the Internet works is as a best effort network--with no traffic prioritized over other traffic in terms of latency. When looked at that way, this proposal seems to indicate nothing about letting ISPs simply hold capacity steady if they added additional services. Just that the traditional broadband connection would still function as a best effort network. The only thing this does is clarify that having a dedicated service carried alongside that best effort network (but not impinging on the bandwidth or latency of it) would be allowed. Kind of like how phone calls are still carried on the same copper lines as DSL, or cable TV carried on the same cable as Internet connections--only the new services might be information based.
The wireless part does seem pretty crappy, but then the wireless space is drastically different than wired access. There are hard spectrum, and thus bandwidth, limitations to consider.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
keraneuologyAug 11, 2010
@&*^#@ google. They could have demanded that Verizon sell Android phones (with WiFi enabled) without the mandatory data plan that costs an extra $360/year even if you don't want it. They didn't.
mlw4428Aug 11, 2010
No they couldn't. The OS is open sourced...Verizon can add/remove anything they want.
keraneuologyAug 11, 2010
This isn't about adding or removing features to the phone or making any changes to the OS. This is about
“Android is a trademark of Google Inc. Use of this trademark is subject to Google Permissions.”
Google doesn't have to let Verizon use the Android name and could easily have stated that they could not use the name "Android" or "Droid" unless Verizon allowed people to use the phone without buying a dataplan.
They did not.
And now they've restricted root access on the phones.
mlw4428Aug 11, 2010
@keraneuology
1) They don't let anyone use the "name" Android.
"May be used in text as a descriptor, as long as it is followed by a proper generic term (e.g. “Android™ application”). First instance of this use should be followed by a TM symbol."
That's why every Android powered phone (that I can think of at least) has it's own name. Samsung Galaxy, MyTouch, Droid/Droid X/Droid 2/Droid Eris, Motorola Cliq, etc. The only way to use the name is to do something like say "Android(tm) Powered Phone." These permissions are open to everyone. They cannot restrict Verizon, because of the Apache License that the software was released underneath (which allows for proprietary modifications that don't have to be shared with the rest of the OS community).
2) They've never restricted root access. Google doesn't make the phones and thus has absolutely no part in the rootability of a phone. Just a quick, FYI, however...the phone that they designed (and sent to be made by HTC), the Nexus One, has never had any issue with being rooted or unlocked. In fact unlocking the phone was something made very simple by Google.
Honestly, where do you get your information? This is all about adding/removing/modifying features. That's the curse/beauty of the Apache License. The base project is open for all to work with and as a bonus your additions don't have to be added back into the original code. You really need to do some research before posting about this issue again, you clearly have no idea about what you're talking about.
keraneuologyAug 11, 2010
@mlw4428
http://www.cnet.com/8301-19736_1-20013244-251.html
Google pulls Easy Root from Android Market
mlw4428Aug 12, 2010
Again you've done absolutely zero research about anything you're saying.
1) The Android Marketplace is NOT part of the OS. It is an addition by Google and is closed source. You can have multiple "app markets" on your phone. It is speculated in that very article that you linked that Google did this (possibly after some prodding by a carrier)...carriers which are required to ensure that people are adopting Android.
You're not required to use the Google's app store...this would be like getting pissed off at Microsoft because Download.com decided they didn't allow any more downloads of Spybot.
2) Verizon is accused of disabling parts of Android and making it so that you have to pay to use those parts (like Hotspot..which is disabled only by modifying the source code). Also it's not illegal for carriers to bundle data services with anything...if it were the FTC would be the ones to deal with the carriers, not Google.
3) Google doesn't care how Verizon is modifying their OS. They can't do anything to stop it, because of the Apache License which permits Verizon to basically modify the OS to however they want. Google IS a business and cares about making money, like any other business does. This deal isn't going to be canceled because misinformed people are buying crippled versions of Android by choice. You DON'T have to get a Droid or even use Verizon's network. I use T-Mobile and enjoy my Nexus One very much. It's rooted and unlocked and is running Cyanogenmod's firmware.
4) Verizon is using the term in a generic sense (meaning Android power). They say "Android powered" or "powered by Android" which is like saying "I just ate a delicious meal at McDonald's." McDonald's isn't going to sue for free advertisement. Verizon's phones are called "Droid" (Droid, Droid-X, etc) and the name Droid is licensed to Verizon by Lucasfilm (Star Wars trademark).
Again, you're spouting off with "facts" that you either haven't bothered to check or don't actually understand them. Google isn't being "evil" about anything with Android. They're operating within the rules that are set by the Apache License...I highly recommend you read this license and understand it fully before commenting further.
shogiAug 11, 2010
Wow, how quick opinion turns on Google when their proposal is misunderstood.
bjornskiAug 11, 2010
Suuuuure, they aren't.
You sound like you're pulling a check from them.
shogiAug 11, 2010
You sound like you didn't read the article.
bjornskiAug 11, 2010
No, I just don't believe everything I read. I've been watching the patterns for a while, and this move will be as disastrous as the Comcast/NBC merger.
Information neutrality is going to die.
mlw4428Aug 11, 2010
@bjornski
And yet you believe what you've read about Google making money off of this?
bjornskiAug 12, 2010
No, it's the "we're not doing this for buckets of money" part that I DO NOT believe.
I'm watching their actions, not their press releases.
zeitgeist6149Aug 11, 2010
Google makes money off of ads. Ads run on the internet...
shogiAug 11, 2010
Yeah, ALL of the internet, not just certain parts. Denying users access just limits the ads that they can see/click on, and that hurts google.
zeitgeist6149Aug 11, 2010
Correct.
But saying Google isn't making money off of this proposal is just ridiculous. They are going to make money no matter what they do in this deal, so they might as well make the decision that nets them the most.
This deal will make them money in two ways:
1) They are going to become an ISP - They've flirted in FIOS and they provide wireless for all of Mountain View, CA, so they can def be a provider. This would benefit them because they could remain the soul supplier of public internet access as our wired solutions die off and wireless pops up everywhere and VZ tries to get all evil by offering a "friendlier internet."
2) They will become the gatekeeper - If they aren't an ISP, then they will continue to try to position themselves as the AOL or Netscape of the internet of old - you go through them to get to your content. I don't need to explain how they'll make money off of this, but the idea is that they would sign deals w/ VZ, ATT, Comcast, etc to become the default search engine, or mail provider, Opearting System for cable boxes, or whatever, but they will sign deals with these companies that will forcibly direct traffic through Google.
zeitgeist6149Aug 11, 2010
P.S. For the most part, this proposal is misunderstood in the worst way. There isn't enough talk about because the bloggers forgot to read the second half of the article where they say, "we don't have to obey this net neutrality stuff when we go wireless...which we will in two years at most."
bjornskiAug 12, 2010
Exactly. And after the big push to wireless, the wired infrastructure is going to be left to rot, and it's backbones will be cannibalized to support the wireless net instead.
outsyncofAug 11, 2010
Somewhat related..
For the longest time I was utterly fooled by Google's innocent facade. Like usual, you don't know who you're dealing with until you personally get burned. Google literally stole my hard earned money through one of their advertising (adwords/adsense) related scams. Ever tried calling their customer service? There is none.
These web companies (google, facebook) believe that they can get away with pretty much anything without providing a human outlet to voice your concerns.
Beware... with the way things are going right now, you are 100% at their mercy. What they say goes and you have no say.
zeitgeist6149Aug 11, 2010
Preach it, brotha! Preach!
dijkstra22Aug 11, 2010
I got a laugh out of that one.
boner79Aug 11, 2010
Does Lady Gaga have a hairy c**k?
galevisAug 11, 2010
Before spouting off without at least some explanation as to what their proposal is, please take a moment to read a little about the proposal itself. I suggest http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/ although I don't agree with their slant that wireless networks are and forever will be un-managed (for lack of a better word). The proposal simply says that wireless networks are too new to understand how to properly manage and regulate them, suggesting that it be best to let them develop for a while before putting any heavy-handed regulation on them (my opinion is that the correct answer lays somewhere in-between those two extremes).
Anyway, this is probably going to get mixed reactions so all I'll say is that if you really care about the issue read up on it, there's a lot of info out there. Or you could just shout about "[Insert large company here] is trying to ruin net neutrality!!!!"
shmageggyAug 11, 2010
FTA: "Under the Google-Verizon proposal, which will be reviewed by lawmakers over the coming months"
How f**ked is it that we now allow big business to decide what rules they want to play by?
If congress or the FCC had any sack they would would just say 'listen up mother f**kers this is how its gonna be."
Ahh the rancid stench of corruption.
mweatherAug 11, 2010
"How f**ked is it that we now allow big business to decide what rules they want to play by?"
It's always been that way. Generally speaking, people who don't belong to a given industry have no idea what rules and regulations are required, or what affects proposed rules and regulations would have. Thus the government asks industry leaders for ideas for new laws and feedback for proposed laws.
Closed AccountAug 11, 2010
I say to hell with these big corporations and these s**tty laws. We can let them know that the real power is right here, on the internet. We can organize huge boycotts every time these companies make deals and cut corners that are not in the best interest of the common man. Stop Goggling for a day and using their other services and I am sure they'd get the message.
tk0680Aug 11, 2010
You know how much of a dent it'd make if all of Digg stopped using Google?
None at all. The portion of the internet that has even heard of net neutrality is miniscule.
Closed AccountAug 11, 2010
Well I didn't mean digg only, I meant the internet. I am sure must of the people here are also on facebook and other social networks.
jaschenAug 11, 2010
damn.... I'll miss you google. We had a good run. WTF google. You could have done anything else and I would still support you. s**t, I would even pay for gmail or services you provide. But net neutality is where I draw the line. I don't care if it "isn't that bad". If we give you an inch, then everyone else will think its ok and before we know it, I will have to pay for tiered internet.
Goodbye Verizon. Goodbye Google. I will miss you guys.
dexanthiaAug 11, 2010
And just a week ago Google was claiming that there was no Verizon deal in the works.
Google, what have you done? :(
stillhateyouAug 11, 2010
You guys are acting like f**king children. What Google did was what those of us in the adult world understand has to be done sometimes: compromise. Something you guys don't understand is that 100% Net Neutrality was always far fetched. And, given that we're about to vote even more Republicans into Congress than we had last term, it's going to be just about impossible. Google got us as good a deal as we're going to get. We get net neutrality on wireline internet in exchange for a different set of rules in wireless.
If Google had done what makes you guys feel warm and fuzzy inside, that is not compromise at all and demand full 100% neutrality for wireline and wireless, we wouldn't have got either one. They were negotiating from a weak position.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
danielphermousAug 11, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
lukas88Aug 11, 2010
The jist of it is this: Google and VZW are proposing that net neutrality at its most strict definition be the rule for wired internet connections. For wireless (phones, tablets), there should be no rule, but there should be openness. In other words, if some sites are being emphasized over others, the consumer should be aware of it. The rationality, as they see it, there is not enough spectrum to support a level playing field.
1) I think they are wrong about the wireless technology not being enough to support equal bandwidth for all internet activity. Currently, there is no evidence it is inadequate. In addition, advancement in technology can allow us to do more with less.
2) These companies are under no obligation to even have rules for wired connections. A judge has ruled that the FCC has no business enforcing net neutrality. They are literally policing themselves.
stillhateyouAug 11, 2010
You understand nuance and compromise, something that the masses of digg don't, which is precisely why you won't see much in the way of replies that outline an opinion as to why you're wrong. Instead, you will see either hysteria and rabid digging down.
I disagree with you on your first point. The maximum data rate that can be pumped through a channel is physically limited by the Signal to Noise ratio(logarithmically) and the bandwidth of the signal carrying the data(linearly)(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Hartley_theorem). Increasing either one of these quantities is very difficult. Bandwidth, for a given technology, is usually limited by the FCC when the tech(eg. WiMax) is rolled out. So in effect, bandwidth is a constant.
There are 2 ways to improve SNR. The first is through better signal processing. However, gains in SNR through improved signal processing come very slowly and are marginal at best. So, realistically, the only way to improve SNR is to increase transmit power. This too, though, is complicated. Increasing transmit power in the phone will lead to increased battery drain and could put the amount of radiated power from the phone above the allowed limits. Increasing transmit power at the tower has neither of these problems, but comes with its own set of complications. If you increase transmit power at the tower, interference from adjacent cell towers will also go up, which may well mean that the carriers would have to increase the size of cells. This would, naturally, lead to more people being in a single cell, which would require a decrease in the total bandwidth allocated to each user in each cell. This can be somewhat mitigated by not using the same frequency band in adjacent cells, but not mitigated entirely.
Wireless really is more complicated than most people think. In my opinion, it does in fact warrant a different set of rules.
lukas88Aug 11, 2010
I think at the moment, most wireless customers are satisfied with their speed. I have a nexus one, probably use more bandwidth than most, and it is enough for me. That is why I believe the current situation definitely doesn't call for us to fold on net neutrality over wireless (the caveat being AT&T's overcrowded network in some cities). Not that it is up to us!
The real question is whether it will be necessary in the future. As soon as people start demanding HD content on their iPads, we might be in a pickle. That is probably what google and VZW are wanting to be ready for. But in a perfect world I was hoping google wouldn't compromise, especially based on hypotheticals.
stillhateyouAug 11, 2010
I don't think Google's primary reason for the compromise was technical actually, even though I personally find that to be reason enough. I believe Google's primary reason for compromise was political.
Google could easily have not budged and demanded neutrality for wireless as well as wired networks. But in the end, it would have required an extensive effort to lobby Congress and, given the current political client and the complete lack of will to regulate much of anything, this would likely have been a losing battle. Verizon and all of the other internet providers know this very well, but the fight would have been just as expensive and rough for them as it would be for Google. Given that, it's better for Verizon to give on wired neutrality, where they really don't have a technical leg to stand on in rejecting neutrality and little revenue to lose... the internet is already very profitable for them.
That is just my opinion, but it's my honest opinion. Without a compromise like this, I truly believe we wouldn't have gotten any net neutrality... wired or wireless.
csfflameAug 11, 2010
I thought we determined this was fake?
seanwuzhereAug 11, 2010
Bing FTW
seriouzbidnezzAug 11, 2010
Google is a business and they need to make money. All internet providers should be able to do whatever they want to increase profits because regulations are bad and stifle the economy. This is just another example of failed liberal policies to throttle business. Thanks ObamaComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
doublebaconsodaAug 11, 2010
Pretty soon cell phone companies will get free access to my wireless router so they can send stuff to their customers with my dime. : (
Wait, do they already do this?
doublebaconsodaAug 11, 2010
This net neutrality stuff and google making deals with cell phone companies makes me wonder if they are actually planning on creating some sort of revenue stream able to light up all the unused fiber optic lines all over the country. Kind of like a sponsor type program to support the costs for maintaining the lines. Cell phone companies could link towers with these things allowing grater bandwidth for wireless internet.
mosi13Aug 11, 2010
The internet needs to be classified as a utility. Period.
toddm030Aug 12, 2010
BTW: if you haven't read the agreement, there would be virtually NO net neutrality applied to MOBILE networks.
Google has repeatedly stated how important the mobile market is for them and the future of technology. As wireless technology becomes more advanced there will be less and less of a need for a non-mobile Internet.
To me this agreement is a sneeky corporate investment in a non-net neutrality future.
Google has opened the door to the evil room. We just won't realize it till five to ten years from now when we're almost completely dependent on mobile networks. I'm officially removing my Google fanboy badge and throwing it in the dumpster.