Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Cephla Sparks
27 Followers
Kyle Cassidy
100 Followers
timewarrior
3373 Followers
Amar Nadhir
728 Followers
Francis Bawasanta
0 Followers
jrepinAug 12, 2010
Google in damage control. The truth is here. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/08/google-verizon-netneutrality
sandeepxAug 13, 2010
or simply exchange all "myth" with "fact"
tgc1Aug 13, 2010
I didn't even notice they were using that language. Just realized how f**king bad that makes Google look. You never contradict what someone says by labeling it a myth. Google f**ked up there and made themselves look even worse.
They could easily have displayed what was said, and how they respond to it. But to label it a myth, that's like attempting to brainwash you into thinking that the concerns are nonsense, which they are not. They are very important objections which Google is not addressing properly.
tntbassAug 13, 2010
Everyone should read that article if they are at all interested in this net neutrality debate, or at least concerned with what the Google/Verizon proposal means.
MarvelintheSkyAug 13, 2010
And Digg it!
vektuzAug 13, 2010
The first couple rules in Googles proposal are good, they just kind of get derailed (and I'm pretty sure its all thanks to Verizon and other related greed).
I hope congress takes this, chops out the stupid greedy parts, and leaves the rest intact. Most specifically, the core concepts of:
* end-point neutrality (no interfering with packets due to their start or destination, including who they're from in terms of companies or sites, where they're from in terms of countries, etc)
* content neutrality (no interfering with packets based on their contents in any way!)
* FCC gets legal power to force compliance, but no power to make new regulations.
Thats all we really need! We don't need any other rules. With those very basic things, there's still room for plenty of competition and government doesn't get a blank check to do what it wishes. In fact, this would improve competition because it means ISPs would have to compete on the basis of service quality rather than trying to pull traffic shaping tricks or offering speedier access to hulu/youtube/facebook at the expense of everything else.
vstg005Aug 13, 2010
When Google posts myth/fact pieces written by their lawyers, you know they've dropped the "don't" in their motto.
cocopuffzAug 13, 2010
Alot of people have jumped the gun with the panic button. Read through it and calm down.
toddm030Aug 13, 2010
Pratically no net neutrality for the mobile market! Think about how that will pan out five to ten years from now.
I think this is a great time to hit the panic button since the common man doesn't understand how this will affect them in the long run.
Google and Verizon have prepared a Trojan horse that will ruin net neutrality, but we won't realize till years from now unless we take action now.
mantherAug 13, 2010
Did you actually read the blog post?? Or did you just hear a rumor that makes you feel justified in telling people that the sky is falling??
It's just a start, and to be honest, I think it's a better start than what Verizon and Congress would have come up with without Google...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
Mather, did YOU actually read the blog post?
FTA: "....allow broadband providers to offer certain specialized services to customers, services which are not part of the Internet. So, for example, broadband providers could offer a special gaming channel, or a more secure banking service, or a home health monitoring capability"
You know what that sounds like to me? All of a sudden things like gaming, banking, and home health monitoring are not considered to be part of the "real" Internet, allowing providers to charge extra for them. toddm030 is spot on, imo - it's a Trojan Horse scenario, because you have to wonder what else will suddenly be decreed not to be part of the "public" Internet and thus subject to additional, specialty pricing.
Critical thinking is your friend. Just because a huge corporation can hire a convincingly soothing PR or legal firm doesn't mean that you're obligated to take their corporate double-speak at face value. Google has long since passed the "cute and friendly start-up" phase and moved into the "corporate behemoth" phase. It has been a public company for almost six years, and its investors want to see returns. Everything else is irrelevant.
mantherAug 13, 2010
@WhiskeyLemur.... To finish your quote: "– so long as such offerings are separate and apart from the public Internet. Some broadband providers already offer these types of services today. The chief challenge is to let consumers benefit from these non-Internet services, without allowing them to impede on the Internet itself."
Sounds to me like X-Box Live would have it's own little pipe off to the side, so that when millions of users buy the next great game and start playing online, it will have NO impact on your casual internet use. Banks might be able to offer secure services to business customers so they can transfer financial information without worrying about someone on the public internet sniffing out those packets and stealing identities or what not... It sure as hell doesn't sound like things that are on the internet will suddenly have to come off the public internet and be forced into a specialty service you have to pay extra for. Reading comprehension is your friend, well, it should be anyway...
"Everything else is irrelevant."
Apparently including the end of sentences and the completion of thoughts....
toddm030Aug 13, 2010
Right... so these new found "pipes" (lol) will have no affect on the current public channels? No patents, no law suits?
I'm sure this won't have any affect on any of those public sites when a private one can open up in the same neighborhood and hires a gang of high-priced lawyers.
I'm sure they won't attack anyone who is providing similar functionality. Businesses are just too humble and good to do something like that.
This opens up a can of worms that we cannot even begin to comprehend especially when you give lawyers a tool that they can use.
boeremaAug 13, 2010
Let me help you guys out. I work for a very large data backbone provider (not AT&T), so I have actual knowledge in this area. What Google and Verizon are talking about, "certain specialized services", have existed for years. When they say that they aren't accessible from the Internet at large, they simply mean that you cannot navigate to them or connect to them without the special equipment they provide (e.g. Xbox 360 or PS3). They are not talking about physical data lines being added.
These services are communicated over your existing broadband connection and therefore are part of your normal bandwidth allocation. Any talk about priority with regards to these services is little more than configured routing maps for that specific type of traffic as it has a well-know endpoint (Microsoft servers, Google servers, etc.). Many companies pay for this type of service. For instance, if a company has a large office in Minneapolis, MN, but their NOC (Network Operations Center) is in Houston, TX, they could ask AT&T to create a very specialized set of routing rules to direct their traffic more efficiently. This is because they expect to have a large amount of data transfer to a single set of addresses.
Hope this helps.
mabakerbrakerAug 13, 2010
s**tted in the pants. Now it’s time for damage control. Just how stupid Google thinks ppl are?
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
well, going on your grammar, pretty stupid
1platypusAug 13, 2010
Wow... I think that is the first time I have seen you dugg up mabakerbraker
hipmanAug 13, 2010
That title is contradictory.
badqatAug 13, 2010
Well, there are an awful lot of "opinions" being presented as "fact" here.
I'm still not digging how wireless is excluded from net neutrality.
AT&T has come out in support of this proposal. When AT&T and Verizon are in lock-step, that ought to be a clue to us that things aren't in the best interests of consumers.
@jrepin has this correct - after you read Google's "facts", take a look at what the EFF has to say. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/08/google-verizon-netneutrality
dalittleAug 13, 2010
I trust the EFF over big corporations.
hipmanAug 13, 2010
But Google promised not to be evil.
vektuzAug 13, 2010
I'm almost automatically against anything AT&T wants - they've never EVER done something that is specifically good for the consumer, only stuff thats specifically good for them, even at the expense of the consumer. Yes, this is exactly how you'd expect a rational corporation to behave - this is normal - but at the same time, it means that if its good for them, its bad for us.
badqatAug 13, 2010
Both AT&T and Verizon support this. Combined, AT&T and Verizon control the majority of the wireless market in the United States.
They've got one other telling thing in common as well. Both AT&T and Verizon block bit-torrent over their wireless networks.
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
HACK THE PLANET!
toddm030Aug 13, 2010
Umm, how is this moving things constructively!? Did you miss the part where they basically want to kill net neutrality for the mobile market!?
Sure this may not seem like a big deal now but as technology improves, and we become more dependent on mobile networks, this will essentially kill net neutrality in the long run.
It's a sneeky move that will only benefits corporations and Google is sleezy enough to be in on it. It's time to accept the fact that Google is evil. I believed in them for awhile, but this marks the end of the honeymoon.
mantherAug 13, 2010
I disagree. When was the last time the Government let you get a glimpse this good at anything they're trying to pass as law or regulation?? Google isn't the only player at the table here...Could you imagine what this proposal would look like if it were only Verizon writing it up?? I'm guessing that Google had to make some pretty big compromises in its ideals (mobile market maybe?) in order to get something that Verizon would accept.... Then they leaked it and it's time for the public to speak out against aspects of it in order for the Government to understand our concerns, and chop it all up to make some much better regulations than are defined here... and if the Government doesn't make it better after hearing public outcry, it becomes the Government's fault, and not Google's.
Google doesn't MAKE law, they can only PROPOSE it. At least they know the definition of the word transparent.
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
"Google doesn't MAKE law, they can only PROPOSE it"
Nominally true. But Google has money, and money talks - if you're unfamiliar with the neat little concept of "lobbying," I highly recommend you read up on it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
toddm030Aug 13, 2010
@Manther, so you decided to focus on the "Google is evil" part of my rant.
Whatever, even if you still want to view Google as being the good guy you have to admit that this will ruin net neutrality in the long run. That is the most important point that I am trying to make.
As technology advances people will naturally migrate to mobile networks since it's just more convinient. We already see it happening. With this being the case we need to focus on net neutrality for the mobile market just as much as the wired market.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mantherAug 13, 2010
Since I know you've read all of my comments on this article, I shouldn't have to say this twice, but Google's business depends on people trusting them, and they know it. They also have a lot at stake if broadband providers were to get everything they wanted. It is in their best interest to leverage as much power away from the providers (take the discussion OUT of Washington and AWAY from the dirty lobbyists, yes I know what they are...) and make sure the public has all the facts of the discussion (which Congress and other Corporations have gone out of their way to prevent in the past...). This is a proposal that Google got Verizon to agree to. There likely doesn't exist a proposal that would TRULY be in the public's best interest that Verizon would agree to, and if Google just let Verizon talk to Congress, the bill would likely be more in their favor than this is.
Google WANTS the public to criticize this proposal, and SCREAM about it, and get Congress to chop it up a bit and make it even more Consumer friendly, because what's good for the consumer is good for Google, in this specific case.
mantherAug 13, 2010
I understand what you're saying Toddm030, I just think you're going too far in assuming that this proposal is EXACTLY what Google wants to have happen. I won't say, nor have I said, that this proposal really is a good thing, and should pass as is. I believe that it is a starting point, the best that Google could get Verizon to agree to and publish, and one that I think Google wants the public and the Government to rip it apart and make it even more consumer friendly. I think too many people are ignoring the fact that Verizon was a partner in this deal, and they're putting all the blame for anything bad they see in there on Google.
If you'd said "It's a sneaky move that will only benefits corporations and Verizon is sleazy enough to be in on it." I'd have agreed wholeheartedly. Verizon is known to be evil, and I'm kinda surprised that we're seeing a proposal they agreed to that isn't MORE evil than this one is...
toddm030Aug 13, 2010
I want to trust Google. I really do... but I think this issue is too important for the public to trust anyone.
I believe that Google's game sort of changed after the Nexus One failed. That was a huge turning point for Google. They discovered they have no choice but to be in bed with mobile carriers in order to advance their footing in the mobile market.
Can a moral partner continue to move through the world making positive choices when his wife is the devil? It's impossible.
mantherAug 13, 2010
"this issue is too important for the public to trust anyone." That is very true, and that is why Google put this at the bottom of their post:
"It’s up to Congress, the FCC, other policymakers – and the American public – to take it from here. Whether you favor our proposal or not, we urge you to take your views directly to your Senators and Representatives in Washington."
It's pretty clear here that Google isn't trying to force this proposal through all the channels as is, and is in fact ASKING you to scrutinize it and tell your Congressmen/women what you do and don't want included. Have you heard that message from Verizon??
The Nexus One didn't fail, I don't know where that rumor even came from... I'm actually upset that my contract with Verizon lasted so long that Google stopped selling the Nexus before I could get one. Google themselves said it was an experiment, and they accomplished what they wanted to with it. I'd even argue that in order for them to truly succeed, they have to wrangle some of the control away from the like of Verizon and ATT, so that when they offer some service on a phone, the experience doesn't differ from carrier to carrier (which I've also heard is their ultimate goal...).
"Can a moral partner continue to move through the world making positive choices when his wife is the devil? It's impossible."
You're probably right that you wouldn't see such a scenario.....however, I think it's premature and a little foolish to assume that just because these two corporations huddled together and came to a compromise that they could agree on together, that they're suddenly holding hands frolicking in a field dreaming of a happily ever after together....
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
I don't like their expression "...the best effort Internet".
We want kick-ass Internet.
Period.
roro2983Aug 13, 2010
i will never use google again in my life
marx2kAug 13, 2010
http://tinyurl.com/32g5u5t
roro2983Aug 13, 2010
haha got me
arcookeAug 13, 2010
"So, for example, broadband providers could offer a special gaming channel, or a more secure banking service, or a home health monitoring capability – so long as such offerings are separate and apart from the public Internet."
VerizonArcade® - Play all your favorite games online with friends for only $9.99/mo!
Open internet - Free.
LEAVE THE f**kING INTERNET ALONE.
atomic1fireAug 13, 2010
Google's new definition means not discriminating based on content (like specific services), while giving higher priority branches of services (voip, gaming, high end video and streaming) the bandwith they need,
I doubt they would make gaming slower to sell their own gaming, they might offer exclusive titles, and buy or license stuff from a company like gamefly, but they won't try to get busted for antitrust.
secondly,
The new proposal actually has government regulating Wired services,
DSL pretty much counts as wired, and that's a verizon service,
The federal government could in theory, step in and say that its monopolistic.
Google's plan is pretty much a half and half scenario,
Give half of net neutrality, and keep half the internet mostly unregulated (except under the "watchful" eye of congress)
I really can't say I know how this will pan out, as I really only see the EFF, and maybe Pc world complaining about this.
But would you really think that google would let it's future marketplace get regulated like none other.
Chrome OS is on the way in, android is popular now, I can't say I'm that surprised considering the second the government looks into wireless, they might start to question google as a monopoly.
Windows might have a stronghold on desktops and labtops, but when you consider that chrome OS, and android could probably run low enough for most netbooks, Google probably doesn't want the wireless service (and thus, the whole reason people use net-books), being regulated by overzealous career politicians protecting the inter-webs.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
It might or might not make gaming slower, but do you doubt for a moment that it will make it more expensive?
atomic1fireAug 15, 2010
I doubt gaming would get more expensive,
truth be told, I think that if ISP's started to charge for gaming services, it would cut into revenues of video game publishers,
People would play offline more, especially in the current economy.
If they offered cheap unlimited service, some people might go along with it, but do you really think gamers would want to pay extra, for a service they have been paying for years at a lesser price.
Gamers are probably one of the bigger consumers of high speed services, The gamers need for lower ping guarantees that they will probably go for the fastest service in their price range.
If gaming speeds are toted as a extra, more expensive service,
Gamers might switch to a different ISP, or buy less games, to make up for the difference in cost.
that hurts sales on the ends of the publishers, and might push them to go along with monopoly charges.
as one ISP with a wide market, might hurt their cash flow.
mooniniteAug 13, 2010
Your theoretical scenario sounds like AOL and we all know how well AOL worked out.
xsecretsAug 13, 2010
so whats the problem with them offering their own gaming channel for 9.99 don't buy it if you don't want it. The only problem would be if they started interfering with the standard internet gaming, which I believe this proposal wouldn't allow.
arcookeAug 14, 2010
Private interests. Partnerships.
Look at Microsoft's "Games for Windows". Look at Xbox 360 exclusive games. PS3 exclusive. The list goes on. Companies pay publishers to do certain things with their games, like making them exclusive to one console. It's not far-fetched to presume the same would be likely in this scenario. Verizon starts a gaming service that charges consumers $10/month. Verizon then partners with game publishers and pays them a lot of money to make their multiplayer games use a proprietary protocol to be used only with Verizon's gaming service. The publisher makes a lot of money from Verizon, and Verizon makes a lot of money from you.
What happens with commercial games is already VERY heavily influenced by partnering corporations. It wouldn't be hard for them to set up a deal with the top 10 game publishers (the top 10 accounting for something like 90% of commercial games).
Tinfoil hat? I really don't think so. This IS the direction they're headed. If they were to do something like this, you wouldn't have a choice. It could end up being, either fork out the $9.99/month, or don't play multiplayer games.
tgc1Aug 13, 2010
Precisely. I agree. They need to keep their grubby f**king mitts off the Internet.
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
Broadband providers are that: pipe providers, not content providers. Why do they want to start offering us services: they never, ever came-up with anything meningful. Quick, someone, name an essentia service/software/content you use on a daily basis. (50 cents txt msgs excluded).
danielphermousAug 13, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
xsecretsAug 13, 2010
I use comcast phone service, and yes I like the fact that they can prioritize the traffic over their own network so you don't have to deal with the problems that come from voice over "best effort" internet traffic. I have no problem with them prioritizing this traffic. I would however have a problem with them deprioritizing VOIP traffic in a bid for force people off vonage or the like. Basically I have no problem with the carriers being able to prioritize traffic internal to thier network.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fgdg56Aug 13, 2010
Google is worse than Microsoft ever was
kralAug 13, 2010
Ahahaha, no.
tgc1Aug 13, 2010
Last I checked, Microsoft hasn't tried to take over the Internet.
kernel16Aug 13, 2010
As part of my engineering program I had to take a class in communication that dealt a lot with public relations and so on, this just reads like damage control. I can imagine someone going over 3 times to perfectly phrase this portion, "However, in the spirit of compromise, we have agreed to a proposal that allows this market to remain free from regulation for now," thank you for making it sound like regulations are tyrannical. So essentially, you've just technically stated that net neutrality doesn't apply to wireless within your compromise.
fhwqhgadsAug 13, 2010
Well that's a very nice load of bulls**t there, Google.
tarantulusAug 13, 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcFlp6kl508
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
NONE OF THESE WERE MYTHS. F**K YOU GOOGLE!
mantherAug 13, 2010
FACT: Our two companies are proposing a legislative framework to the Congress for its consideration. We hope all stakeholders will weigh in and help shape the framework to move us all forward. We’re not so presumptuous to think that any two businesses could – or should – decide the future of this issue. We’re simply trying to offer a proposal to help resolve a debate which has largely stagnated after five years.
It’s up to Congress, the FCC, other policymakers – and the American public – to take it from here. Whether you favor our proposal or not, we urge you to take your views directly to your Senators and Representatives in Washington.
Sounds to me that without Google in this mix, it'd be business as usual... And that means VZW, ATT, Comcrap, and the like paying "lobbyists" to go to D.C. and pay Congressmen/women to pass whatever the hell they want...
I think Google has just as much riding on an open internet as us consumers do... the last thing they want is one of their competitors (Microsoft, you're my most likely candidate to consider this) partnering with with a major ISP (sounds like something Comcrap would think about) and just making the experience terrible for people not using "approved" software/services...
I do NOT believe that the current U.S. Congress is above catering to the highest bidder...
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
"I do NOT believe that the current U.S. Congress is above catering to the highest bidder..."
I don't believe that either; however I *do* believe that Google and Verizon (especially if they pool their resources) are in a very good position to become that highest bidder.
mantherAug 13, 2010
You're absolutely right there, and the ONLY reason that doesn't scare the crap out of me, is because Google has no problem spreading their proposal all over the internet, while we've been seeing for YEARS that the Government doesn't know the definition of the word 'Transparent'.
Google's business depends on people trusting them, and they know that.
oxphantomxoAug 13, 2010
Buried as inaccurate damage control.
shellcase13Aug 13, 2010
I wonder if Google had their lawyers go to a training seminar with BP lawyers.
lordmikeAug 13, 2010
Translation--We, Google, want to own the Internet... then we'll make it "neutral" on our terms.
dustin00Aug 13, 2010
Some companies are more neutral than others.
quambAug 13, 2010
I thought the government was supposed to serve the people right?? If anything, THEY should be rooting for net neutrality and keeping the corporations at bay..... not the other way around.
Seriously what bizarro world is this?
nyxerebosAug 13, 2010
One where lobbyists fund your representative's campaigns. Don't pander to the lobbyists? Then you won't have the money to get elected, short of a massive personal fortune (in which case you probably already have conflicts of interest) or some other source of funds such as religious fanatics.
Y'all need to centralize campaign finance. Have the government issue coupons to anyone who registers to vote. You can then give these coupons to your party/candidate of choice, or throw them away. No other donations allowed. Sure, this means campaigns are paid for directly by the taxpayer, but they are anyway, when businesses can extract more money than they should thanks to the laws they pass.
Not saying business or even lobbying are bad, just that they do not exist to serve the public interest, and therefore shouldn't be able to buy influence.
insicknessAug 13, 2010
This is exactly why I give a small monthly donation to EFF. There's nobody out there who is truly fighting for our rights on the internet like EFF is.
scotty562Aug 13, 2010
This proposal is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
pjhorrexAug 13, 2010
In a nutshell: "Please ignore all this evil we're doing over here. We are totally not doing any evil."
kralAug 13, 2010
"MYTH: Google has “sold out” on network neutrality."
"Google has been the leading corporate voice on the issue of network neutrality over the past five years."
"But given political realities,"
In other words, you sold out. Either that, or whoever was in charge on this is f**king retarded. I see now why probably people in your own company leaked this.
scipioAug 13, 2010
f**k you, Google.
vektuzAug 13, 2010
Haha I love them trying to defend their wireless exception - wireless is more competitive therefore no neutrality... really now... this is so transparent.
andrewmoyerAug 13, 2010
2 ultra-mega-corporations that have a massive stake in controlling the future of the internet... creating a "legislative framework" for Congress to fill in the details.
WHAT COULD GO WRONG...
gate100Aug 13, 2010
Yeah, I don't remember voting for either of these corporations in any Congressional or Presidential races. Yet, last time i checked the Constitution, only the legislature and the President are allowed to introduce legislation.
tgc1Aug 13, 2010
Sounds to me like Google had brokered some sort of back room deal with Verizon to split up the pie so to speak. "You don't f**k with our pie, we won't f**k with yours... here's how it's going to go down" kind of thing.
Any time two giant corporations meet on anything, we should be weary. So far as i'm concerned the Internet works f**king marvelously as it is. With steady technical improvements in capacity and the likes, we will enjoy this free and open internet for generations to come.
Unless some bunch of well-to-do ass goblins like Google and Verizon come along and try to insure that their own piece of the pie is had when the cards fall down. It seems more and more that big business and big government are not content with allowing the people to have unfettered access to any information they want. They want to impose restrictions, tax it, regulate it and censor it to all hell "for the children" no less.
In short, we already have Net Neutrality because that is how the Internet works. These f**kers are trying to ruin it. And any proposals on limiting or otherwise changing how it works should be met with fury and anger of the sort reserved for the 10th level of hell. Mark my words, these f**kers get their way, you can kiss your porn collection goodbye. These assh**es will censor that like they do or have tried to do in Australia.
The Internet, IMHO is the last hope we have as free people to congregate and relay information without the government or big business having anything to say about it. They get their mitts in it, we are f**kED. "Game over man. Game over."
Do not take this lightly. This isn't a joke. Let me repeat. We lose the Internet, we lose EVERYTHING.
dadumtishAug 13, 2010
Google just died. No they are a soulless shell.
f**k Brin, f**k Paige, f**k Schmidt.
skeloothAug 13, 2010
No, that blog post does not save face. This is a crumby deal! There can be no compromise on this issue!
ryannorthcottAug 13, 2010
I made a slight edit to the Net Neutrality (Canadian Version) Wiki page. Let's see if anyone notices! It's under "Arguements For and Against). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality_in_Canada
1platypusAug 13, 2010
They already fixed it :(
ryannorthcottAug 13, 2010
So much for "Don't Be Evil".
dougs55Aug 13, 2010
"MYTH: This proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless."...
because:
"Congress would always have the ability to step in and impose new safeguards on wireless broadband providers to protect consumers’ interests."
So we're safe because Republicans will regulate a monopoly and Democrats won't accept campaign contributions if it's in the consumers best interest ? Don't think so....
jjiriesAug 13, 2010
I have lost my faith in Google. Time to liquidate my shares and find a new email service.
mjm573Aug 13, 2010
No Google, there isn't a damn thing you can say that will justify your current decision. No corporation should have any direct influence on how the internet is managed. I don't care how well intentioned you may be. If you are driven by the profit motive, then you don't care about the effects your decisions have on the general public. If Google wants to do anything remotely close to their "Don't be evil" mantra, they need to pull an about face.
bubba9999Aug 13, 2010
I don't think that blog post actually painted Google in a very good light, so it wasn't really damage control. It does, however, present Google's current side of the story. It's pretty sad, really, since Google initially fought for Net Neutrality when it first started rearing its head in the world. Of course, that was when the teleco's wanted to impede Youtube.
Sad that you're willing to compromise so easily when it's self-serving, Goog. What deal are you and Verizon hatching out?
cubicledroneAug 13, 2010
"Public Internet"
There is one Internet. Any modifier in front of Internet, such as "improved" "chicken-flavored" or "tough stain fighter" is unacceptable.
There should be one open Internet. Everyone gets fair access at a reasonable cost. Anything else is unacceptable.
ryannorthcottAug 13, 2010
Bastards.
It is incumbent that the content providers rise up against this. It's the only way we can fight against the likes of Google, Verizon and all the other corporate pigs that continually try to line their pockets at the expense of us, the user.
LeonidusPARTASep 27, 2010
http://allsearchsoft.aiq.ru/
http://shikhair.ru
what this??? o_O
zatari123Mar 11, 2011
Read A fast cash advance , payday cash advance , cash advance loan , online cash advance , All This and Much More Than Cash Advance Network Guide
http://cash-advance-network-guide.blogspot.com/