Thank you for providing this explanation...of course, things like this could have so many loopholes for big companies to like google and verizon to collude and corrupt the system (ie. look at lobbying) but thanks for the explanation.
Aside from the specifics of the proposal, which seem somewhat less than encouraging, how sad is it that our country has drifted to the point where corporate interests are so blatantly influencing our public policy?
It's like there's a trial on gun control, so they invite Al Capone and John Dillinger to come lobby for what law ought to be passed.
Shouldn't it not matter what Google and Verizon propose? isn't that be like handing a traffic cop a piece of paper saying what you think your ticket ought to be?
I mean, I know that lobbying is a rampant problem with our government, but I'm still reluctant to accept that Network Neutrality's fate depends entirely on deep-pocked corporate backing.
I agree that corporations have a disproportionate amount of power in our political system, but I think it is absurd to say that they should be entirely removed from the process. Companies are agents in our economic and social system. Thus, in our representative democracy, they have the same right to voice their opinion regarding how our economic and social systems will operate as individuals. This proposal is not "blatantly influencing our public policy" any more than when newspapers or blogs publish their opinions. The proposal is not binding law. It isn't even an agreement of action between Google and Verizon. It is simply a statement of opinion.
For the most part I am opposed to the Google/Verizon proposal, but I'm glad they put it forward. At least they have contributed to the discussion, stated their position, and rightly put some pressure on Congress to resolve this issue.
I disagree with allowing corporations to be involved in the process of making laws. Particularly when it has to do with something as particular as this. Net neutrality is a necessity for the citizen because if corporations are aloud to sway what we view by regulating bandwidth distribution then the internet would be at risk for corporate takeover. The average user of the internet who does not have the viable income to purchase more bandwidth would loose out and be in a competitively handicap position.
Now allowing corporations to devise the schematics of how the internet should be regulated is dangerous, as the article states, "Many critics also question why the FCC is asking the companies it should be regulating for input on how they should be regulated – like a parent asking a four-year-old what would be a reasonable bed time." The corporations could be proposing an idea which is superficially beneficial for all the users of the internet. Although in due time, if not immediately, loops holes or cracks in this 'proposed legislation' would be identifiable. Later they would be exploited. Simply put the kid will ensure that even though the parent selects the time, it will be in the benefit of the kid.
It is better if the government creates a board of review which includes a wide variety of scholars that include business men (but not the majority) to create a more equality-based approach to creating something as significant as Net Neutrality.
Companies already have voice through the financially biased interests of its own employees. If that's not enough, then likely the greater good lies with the opposing views presented by a wider public.
It's actually more like getting the opinions of the citizens on issues of taxation, healthcare, and other laws that will be applied to them. I do not see how corporations making their opinions on important issues publicly known is in any way a bad thing or as you termed it 'blatantly influencing our public policy'. That is how good democratic government is supposed to work: let all participants from all sides state what they think of the issue and how it should be done, then the legislative arm of the government come up with the final law.
Public discussion of policy is always a good thing, whether the participant is Google or Verizon or Joe the plumber or Al Capone. That is how democracy is supposed to work. If you have an opinion on this issue, you should write your senator/congressperson and get involved too.
This could go to show how uninformed and behind the times the FCC is. They are getting help from the very companies they are supposed to be protecting consumers from.
Name a Government regulation that WASN'T written by the industry it was intended to regulate?
- healthcare law, written by insurance and hospitals
- drilling and mining regulations, written by oil and mining companies
- auto safety standards and mileage standards, written by the car companies
- campaign finance laws, written by the people running the campaigns
- wall street regulations, written by the bankers and trading firms
- agricultural subsidies, written by the big agricultural corporations
- Federal aid to State to keep teachers from layoffs, written by the teachers union
Many of the laws you mention were re-written by the industry, but not originally written by their lawyers. I suppose the end result will be the same either way.
I already use Hotmail and have most of my family using it. Skydrive makes integrating everything together simple while making Gmail look behind the times.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I don't understand where all the controversy is coming from. Net neutrality is a must have just like free speech is a must have. There can be no compromise here. Would we allow corporations to negotiate compromises to the bill of rights? No!
The net must be neutral and free! No exceptions and no compromises to that are acceptable. End of story.
Seeing as to how this isn't enshrined in the Constitution, you're dead wrong. If we don't compromise on this, we'll get absolutely nothing.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Have you ever been able to think for yourself and refer to ethics and morality as a spirit of the heart and of the common good without referring to Bibles or pieces of paper?
"Its not in the constitution"
Neither is a corporation being considered a person.
Yes, indeed I can. However, as a *practical* matter, it's completely impossible to insist that there can be no compromise here. Apparently you're not bright enough to distinguish between idealism and the reality of the situation. If you don't want to compromise, then who do you suppose is going to give us Net Neutrality? The FCC and Congress, both of which have refused to do so thus far?
stillhateyou, the reality of the situation is that the people elect the government and the government makes the laws. If we want net neutrality then we can have it. We just have to get the majority to understand the importance of it.
"stillhateyou, the reality of the situation is that the people elect the government and the government makes the laws. If we want net neutrality then we can have it. We just have to get the majority to understand the importance of it."
The majority is more interested in teabagging and fighting the evils of socialism. We're about to get a Republican majority in the House and a significantly weakened Democratic majority in the Senate. I wouldn't count on our elected representatives giving us net neutrality. Google got us the best we're going to get.
I challenge you to come up with a *realistic* scenario in which we get something better. For starters, you have to come up with some reasonable way for the Democrats to not lose seats in Congress in the upcoming election. If you can't do that, then net neutrality is dead in the water.
You call it giving up, I call it being practical and realistic... tempering my desires with the facts of the world around me. Given the last 30 years of American leadership, I think my cynicism is well justified.
It's a ridiculous exaggeration to say that if the Democrats lose any seats in November that net neutrality is forever dead. It's very simple. We have to make the people aware of what net neutrality is and encourage people to pressure their congressmen no matter if they be blue or red. If any provider does start charging websites for priority bandwidth then we have to protest extremely loudly.
Net neutrality is not a highly controversial Dems vs. Pubs issue like abortion rights or gay marriage. This is something I think almost everyone will be behind once they know what it is. If we speak out for it then we can win this one, regardless of whether or not a few more Pubs get into office.
" We have to make the people aware of what net neutrality is and encourage people to pressure their congressmen no matter if they be blue or red."
You have more faith in the voting public than I do.
"Net neutrality is not a highly controversial Dems vs. Pubs issue like abortion rights or gay marriage."
It's not highly controversial, but that's only because few in the general population understand or give a s**t. The Republican party establishment, however, does care, and are firmly against net neutrality, and you can bet your ass that they'd use cries of socialism and fascism to get their base riled up and angry over the evil government for interfering with private industry if the Democrats did try to pass net neutrality legislation.
Well we'll see what happens. No harm in trying right? I'm going to be very vocal about this and I think there are a lot of others who will be too, especially if and when any provider actually starts playing favorites with websites traffic.
I would prefer a limited versions were types of services are treated the same. Like Youtube vs Hulu vs Netflix Streaming. Each one streams video and needs large amounts of bandwidth. Email & HTML should not have access to the same amount of bandwidth as HD video or something like a VoiP call because they do not need it.
Do you understand physics? Do you understand RF Spectrum?
Do you have any idea what happens if 5 million Americans all decide to watch American Idol on their cell phone at 7pm? Without allowing QoS and network management, the cell network collapsed, 911 calls fail, calls to your friends fail, texting fails, everything wireless fails.
Imagine if everyone wanted their own personal CB radio channel... We'd run out of radio spectrum after a few hundred people.
It isn't that clear-cut. The constitution and the bill of rights grant you negative rights - i.e. that you will be able to speak your mind or own firearms. It doesn't say that the government/corporations have to provide you with a megaphone to speak your mind or that the govt has to buy you guys. You are free to acquire them on your own.
What's different about net neutrality is that in order for you to have internet access, someone else must build the cables and run the routers etc. Typically it's done by telecom corporations and you pay for them as a business purchase. This falls under commerce and free/fair business transactions. It is not about inherent rights.
While I agree with the principles of net neutrality in general, you'd be pushing it too far to say it is equivalent to free speech. They are not the same. One is a negative right (you are free to exercise it yourself, noone is obligated to help you use it) and the other is a positive right (someone else has to provide it to you - usually as part of a business transaction.)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The idea of net neutrality is that the internet belongs to the human race - not the shareholders of the company that laid the copper and fiber in our ground.
You speak of 'the internet' as if it is a single object - it isn't. It is made of contents and services, running on servers, being transmitted through cables or other medias, going through routers, and 'directorized' by dns servers. Most of these components are created or bought by various individuals, corporations, and nations. These ownerships are spread across various entities, and they do not belong to this abstract entity you called 'humanity' any more than the cheeseburger I bought today belong to other members of society. Humanity is free to create a better cheeseburger for the good of the human race if it so wishes, but it has no right to take my private property without my consent. That is theft.
The contents of each website belongs to the people/corporations that own that website. I have a personal website where I write about topics that interest me, and no, it does not belong to you or this 'human race' in anyway. it is mine to do with as I please. No 'humanity' has any say to what I want to do with my website. You can make your own website if you wish, but you have no right to interfere with mine. Similarly, google.com belongs to the corporation Google just as facebook.com belongs to the corporation Facebook. 'Humanity' isn't part of the equation.
The cables that connect one center to another belongs to the people/corporations/government that laid those cables. They bought the cable. They laid the cable. It is theirs. Humanity has no claim on these coppers and plastic that were bought and paid for by others.
The routers that route packets from one machine to another belongs to whoever owns that router. It doesn't belong to 'humanity' or any one else. If I have a router in my home network, it is mine to do as I please. I can even turn it off or destroy it if I want. Humanity can go build/buy its own router, but leave mine alone.
The dns is possibly the only thing that can be said to be owned by 'humanity', though in practice they are managed by neutral organizations such as ICANN. Even then, countries (such as China) are known to run their own dns system, which belongs to them, and not anyone else's business. Some corporations run their own dns services as well (see OpenDNS). Their system is theirs to do as they please and doesn't belong to humanity either.
'The internet' as you called it is made of many components, most of which are private properties and belong to their respective owners. If people or governments want to come together and build a globally-owned collection of websites, cables, routers, and dns resolution systems, by all means, please do. Many organizations and governments are in fact doing this in one form or another. But such effort must not involve the seizure of private property. The concept that property can be privately held and free from seizure by others is a fundamental part of modern society and must not be violated, not even for net neutrality.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
How about the one where everything you know as "the internet" is all run and owned by private companies and they can do this s**t if they want and if you don't like it you can not buy their services??????
The way I see it, corporations who maintain the infrastructure of the internet are interested in creating a market for profit where there was none before.
All of a sudden, websites are being forced to pay for increased bandwidth & pass their costs onto the end-users (us). Websites that don't pay more for increased bandwidth fail for running slowly on users' machines.
Why all this wired/wireless distinction? Wireless carriers are only "wireless" once the signal gets to the nearest cell tower, then its on fibre. What am i missing?
Wireless has limited bandwidth, even in a 10 mile cell. Smart phones with data are exploding, and these people want to stream live video all damn day long on the "unlimited data plan". This is not a maintainable situation long term.
You can just create more RF spectrum out of thin air! (no pun intended)
They are probably scared that it could require them to provide equal access to cell towers by other parties at a wholesale rate. Then coverage becomes a non-issue as everyone has the same coverage.
If an Internet capable device such as a mobile phone seeks to access the Internet via a competitors cell tower and they don't allow it at any price, then they are not being "net neutral".
It's not an agreement, it's a proposal, and if you think a proposal by a wireless carrier to exempt themselves is going to be taken seriously, I've got a bridge you might be interested in. The news here isn't that a major carrier wants to exempt itself, it's that a major carrier thinks everyone else should play by the FCC's rules. That's what the FCC is going to pay attention to.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
This issue highlights a problem with digg. There's far too much groupthink and a conversation on an issue dealing in subtleties is impossible. The comments on stories dealing with this issue make Slashdot look like the paragon of civil and rational discourse where things aren't defined in black and white.
Much of this debate is idiocy. It's idiocy because the people involved in the debate don't actually know what 'net neutrality' means. A commenter above compares it to free speech. This is ridiculous. Net neutrality is not - nor is it about - a basic human right. A neutral net would be one in which no provider is allowed to base charges according to site visited or service used. Period. It's not about good versus evil, it's not about corporations versus the little guy, it's not about us versus them. What it is about is who pays for what. Should I get better access than you because I pay more? Should Google's service get priority bandwidth because they pay more?
We tend to all stand up and yell 'No!' in response. But should we?
Do you get more cable channels than me? Probably. Why? Because you pay for it.
Do I get faster upload and download speeds? Yes. Why? Because I pay for it.
Do you get unlimited data on your iPhone? Yes. Why? Because you pay for it.
Does the cable company dedicate more resources to you than me because you pay for more? Yes.
Does my ISP dedicate more resources to me because I pay for more? Yes.
Does your cell phone provider dedicate more resources to you and your iPhone because you pay for it? Yes.
We're digging you down because you don't understand what's going on. You can currently pay for higher download/upload speeds (most cable and internet companies offer different tiers of service). That's not what net neutrality is about. It's about large corporations choosing how to handle how your bandwidth functions based on their promotional contracts, corporate interests, or overhead costs.
Don't be stupid. Large corporations have been choosing how to handle our bandwidth functions for years, You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Using the TV analogy, it's not really about paying more or fewer channels for different prices. It would be like the cable company charging different rates for different channels. No, actually it would be more like higher paying channels being broadcast in 1080p HD while others only get 720p or lower quality resolution.
You don't understand the concept. This is not about an ISP charging you more for more bandwidth, it is about an ISP charging websites for bandwidth. For example, without Net Neutrality, Verizon could get into bed with, let's say, Hulu, and decide that it is going to give Hulu a large chunk of bandwidth, and Netflix a much smaller chunk. That would mean Hulu's service would work great for Verizion customers, but netflix would lag terribly, effectively killing Netflix for Verizon customers. You would have not say in it. You would not be able to use Netflix unless you switched ISPs.
Of course I understand the concept. What you have described is normal business practice. And I think you're taking a rather naive view of the whole thing. If Verizon got in bed with Hulu, it wouldn't result in the death of Netflix for Verizon's customers. It would instead mean that Netflix would only perform acceptably for Verizon customers who were willing to pay for it. Do you really think Verizon would sign away this sort of potential revenue stream?
Also, if Hulu approaches Verizon and proposes a deal, do you think Verizon would fail to see if Netflix would offer a better deal? Again - just normal business practice. What makes you think the internet should be exempt from the free market (and what makes you think the market doesn't already control it)?
Saying the internet is like a highway doesn't sound like net neutrality to me. I see carpool lanes on most major highways which let traffic for certain cars travel faster that other cars. Also carpools get free/cheaper bridge crossings. Sounds like Google is trying to make the internet like a highway, with carpool lanes.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I use an ISP called Optimum Online, and I think they're doing something to the "toll fast lane" effect. They have Optimum Online (which is 10 mb/s), Optimum Online Boost (30 mb/s), and Optimum Online Ultra (they claim it's 100 mb/s).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
This is entirely unrelated. If they sold you a "MSN" package with high-speed Bing!, Hotmail, and Live and delivered Gmail and Yahoo! at 28.8bps, then it would be a problem.
Companies should be allowed to offer different packages at different speeds. No one is debating that really. Soon they will probably even have cap limits on each different package so you'll eventually hit a wall on how much you can consume at once. But like pw378 said, as long as they aren't offering favored or unfavored sites at different speeds then you have to go with the flow unfortunately of speed limits and data caps.
The second allows for “differentiated managed services” that would be exempt from the neutrality given to other traffic. The document gives the examples of “health care monitoring, gaming, smart grid, and advanced educational services.” Although it explicitly claims these could not be use to circumvent rules, it provides no guidelines for which types of services warrant exemption and which belong in the same stream as everyone else.
"The first, and most broad, basically exempts wireless carriers from all the rules except transparency. In other words, they can play favorites and route traffic however they want, as long as they tell us how they’re doing it"
And the telecom industry is made up of what??? 3-5 companies?
So basically, Yes. You would end Net Neutrality. You are welcome to utilize the competition however.... oh wait... there is none.
To keep things in perspective, remember that right now there is no law protecting net neutrality *at all*. The FCC tried to flex their muscle but the federal appeal court ruled against them earlier in April, if you didn't read the news.
Right now we have no law protecting net neutrality on either wireline or wireless. Carriers such as comcast aree free to - and in some cases have in fact been - blocking and throttling traffic with no regulation and no transparency - at all. While the Google/Verizon proposal doesn't completely fix the problem, it is fixing ~half of the problem. It establishes net neutrality on wireline and at least provide transparency on the wireless. it is a step forward, even if it doesn't go all the way. Yet some people consider it somehow to be making things worse than if it were never proposed.
Sounds to me like a glass half full vs glass half empty. Except remember the glass is completely empty right now. If you have a way to get a full glass, by all means, that is the ideal solution. If not, I call this a glass half-full solution.
Here's the problem-- no one wants people to start using tethered phones to download torrents, but it's almost impossible to put together a policy that would provide a decent user experience for the majority without opening the door to abuse by the carriers.
By suggesting that the carriers have to publish how they mess with your access, you at least can make some choices-- AT&T is going to throttle Break.com? Screw them, I'll use T-Mobile, because I never look at FunnyOrDie anyway.
The alternative is the cable modem crap we all lived with back at the end of the 90s-- everyone getting online at once, with a few jerks seriously dragging down the whole neighborhood.
So the question is really what do you think is the worse evil-- having some sites or services being slower than others, or having a universally bad experience?
Personally, I don't see the issue where I use my phone the majority of the time, so I'd prefer to roll the dice and NOT allow them to restrict my access.
People trying to use an iPhone in NYC and SF might disagree.
Or they could make you pay per MB like a lot of wireless carriers already do. That way if you want to download an HD movie via tethering, you can, but you just have to pay extra for the privilege.
I disagree with allowing corporations to be involved in the process of making laws. Particularly when it has to do with something as particular as this. Net neutrality is a necessity for the citizen because if corporations are aloud to sway what we view by regulating bandwidth distribution then the internet would be at risk for corporate takeover. The average user of the internet who does not have the viable income to purchase more bandwidth would loose out and be in a competitively handicap position.
Now allowing corporations to devise the schematics of how the internet should be regulated is dangerous, as the article states, "Many critics also question why the FCC is asking the companies it should be regulating for input on how they should be regulated – like a parent asking a four-year-old what would be a reasonable bed time." The corporations could be proposing an idea which is superficially beneficial for all the users of the internet. Although in due time, if not immediately, loops holes or cracks in this 'proposed legislation' would be identifiable. Later they would be exploited. Simply put the kid will ensure that even though the parent selects the time, it will be in the benefit of the kid.
It is better if the government creates a board of review which includes a wide variety of scholars that include business men (but not the majority) to create a more equality-based approach to creating something as significant as Net Neutrality.
This article is FUD FUD FUD. I'm a big supporter of net neutrality, but this article is just being alarmist, and missing some of the good points of the agreement.
On wired networks, they agreed to not discriminate data based on source, however, they are allowed to discriminate based on type of data. I don't see how this is a bad thing. What this means for end users: My real-time sensitive VoIP call will get priority over somebody's torrent, but Vonage phone calls are not allowed to get priority over Skype calls. I don't see how this is a bad thing, it makes sense. This is not the same thing as throttling, it's priority based on how real-time sensitive the data is.
They also made rules about how they have to be transparent about it, so if they are doing it, they have to tell you they're doing it.
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.
infestusAug 10, 2010
Whatever happened to the agreement just being a lie?
mxm111Aug 11, 2010
Did anyone notice that they shake with LEFT hands on the picture? Nothing good comes out of it...
pw378Aug 12, 2010
The lie was that Google had abandoned network neutrality. This is not the case.
luv2luvAug 10, 2010
Thank you for providing this explanation...of course, things like this could have so many loopholes for big companies to like google and verizon to collude and corrupt the system (ie. look at lobbying) but thanks for the explanation.
seriouzbidnezzAug 12, 2010
but the free market will prevent collusion
pimpofpixelsAug 10, 2010
Aside from the specifics of the proposal, which seem somewhat less than encouraging, how sad is it that our country has drifted to the point where corporate interests are so blatantly influencing our public policy?
It's like there's a trial on gun control, so they invite Al Capone and John Dillinger to come lobby for what law ought to be passed.
Shouldn't it not matter what Google and Verizon propose? isn't that be like handing a traffic cop a piece of paper saying what you think your ticket ought to be?
I mean, I know that lobbying is a rampant problem with our government, but I'm still reluctant to accept that Network Neutrality's fate depends entirely on deep-pocked corporate backing.
kaykfrinkAug 12, 2010
I agree that corporations have a disproportionate amount of power in our political system, but I think it is absurd to say that they should be entirely removed from the process. Companies are agents in our economic and social system. Thus, in our representative democracy, they have the same right to voice their opinion regarding how our economic and social systems will operate as individuals. This proposal is not "blatantly influencing our public policy" any more than when newspapers or blogs publish their opinions. The proposal is not binding law. It isn't even an agreement of action between Google and Verizon. It is simply a statement of opinion.
For the most part I am opposed to the Google/Verizon proposal, but I'm glad they put it forward. At least they have contributed to the discussion, stated their position, and rightly put some pressure on Congress to resolve this issue.
rexofvicisAug 12, 2010
I disagree with allowing corporations to be involved in the process of making laws. Particularly when it has to do with something as particular as this. Net neutrality is a necessity for the citizen because if corporations are aloud to sway what we view by regulating bandwidth distribution then the internet would be at risk for corporate takeover. The average user of the internet who does not have the viable income to purchase more bandwidth would loose out and be in a competitively handicap position.
Now allowing corporations to devise the schematics of how the internet should be regulated is dangerous, as the article states, "Many critics also question why the FCC is asking the companies it should be regulating for input on how they should be regulated – like a parent asking a four-year-old what would be a reasonable bed time." The corporations could be proposing an idea which is superficially beneficial for all the users of the internet. Although in due time, if not immediately, loops holes or cracks in this 'proposed legislation' would be identifiable. Later they would be exploited. Simply put the kid will ensure that even though the parent selects the time, it will be in the benefit of the kid.
It is better if the government creates a board of review which includes a wide variety of scholars that include business men (but not the majority) to create a more equality-based approach to creating something as significant as Net Neutrality.
honoredmuleAug 12, 2010
Companies already have voice through the financially biased interests of its own employees. If that's not enough, then likely the greater good lies with the opposing views presented by a wider public.
philiastraszAug 12, 2010
It's actually more like getting the opinions of the citizens on issues of taxation, healthcare, and other laws that will be applied to them. I do not see how corporations making their opinions on important issues publicly known is in any way a bad thing or as you termed it 'blatantly influencing our public policy'. That is how good democratic government is supposed to work: let all participants from all sides state what they think of the issue and how it should be done, then the legislative arm of the government come up with the final law.
Public discussion of policy is always a good thing, whether the participant is Google or Verizon or Joe the plumber or Al Capone. That is how democracy is supposed to work. If you have an opinion on this issue, you should write your senator/congressperson and get involved too.
namslamAug 10, 2010
im going to get that verizon logo tattooed on my hand as well
ianbell330Aug 11, 2010
This could go to show how uninformed and behind the times the FCC is. They are getting help from the very companies they are supposed to be protecting consumers from.
pw378Aug 12, 2010
Name a Government regulation that WASN'T written by the industry it was intended to regulate?
- healthcare law, written by insurance and hospitals
- drilling and mining regulations, written by oil and mining companies
- auto safety standards and mileage standards, written by the car companies
- campaign finance laws, written by the people running the campaigns
- wall street regulations, written by the bankers and trading firms
- agricultural subsidies, written by the big agricultural corporations
- Federal aid to State to keep teachers from layoffs, written by the teachers union
bungdiddyAug 12, 2010
Many of the laws you mention were re-written by the industry, but not originally written by their lawyers. I suppose the end result will be the same either way.
smanthacarterAug 11, 2010
why aren't any of these Google/Verizon articles getting more diggs?
darkshroudAug 12, 2010
Google fans are sticking their heads in the sand. They can't handle the news that Google will not return their love.
I'm an assh**e so I enjoy pointing out that Gmail trails behind Yahoo & Hotmail in active users to Google fans. They just can't handle news like that.
dig1xAug 12, 2010
gmail trails Hotmail in speed and features.
Go ahead and try it. I'm 100% correct.
darkshroudAug 12, 2010
I already use Hotmail and have most of my family using it. Skydrive makes integrating everything together simple while making Gmail look behind the times.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
xxkidmidnightxxAug 12, 2010
Because its not an anti-apple story about some dude that got his swinging boob app rejected.
pixelmagicAug 12, 2010
Because they were just on reddit yesterday, and it takes 24 hours to get here.
d4nie1Aug 11, 2010
I don't understand where all the controversy is coming from. Net neutrality is a must have just like free speech is a must have. There can be no compromise here. Would we allow corporations to negotiate compromises to the bill of rights? No!
The net must be neutral and free! No exceptions and no compromises to that are acceptable. End of story.
stillhateyouAug 12, 2010
"There can be no compromise here."
Seeing as to how this isn't enshrined in the Constitution, you're dead wrong. If we don't compromise on this, we'll get absolutely nothing.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
inactiveuserAug 12, 2010
This s**t again!
Have you ever been able to think for yourself and refer to ethics and morality as a spirit of the heart and of the common good without referring to Bibles or pieces of paper?
"Its not in the constitution"
Neither is a corporation being considered a person.
stillhateyouAug 12, 2010
Yes, indeed I can. However, as a *practical* matter, it's completely impossible to insist that there can be no compromise here. Apparently you're not bright enough to distinguish between idealism and the reality of the situation. If you don't want to compromise, then who do you suppose is going to give us Net Neutrality? The FCC and Congress, both of which have refused to do so thus far?
You're living in a fantasy land.
d4nie1Aug 12, 2010
stillhateyou, the reality of the situation is that the people elect the government and the government makes the laws. If we want net neutrality then we can have it. We just have to get the majority to understand the importance of it.
stillhateyouAug 13, 2010
"stillhateyou, the reality of the situation is that the people elect the government and the government makes the laws. If we want net neutrality then we can have it. We just have to get the majority to understand the importance of it."
The majority is more interested in teabagging and fighting the evils of socialism. We're about to get a Republican majority in the House and a significantly weakened Democratic majority in the Senate. I wouldn't count on our elected representatives giving us net neutrality. Google got us the best we're going to get.
d4nie1Aug 13, 2010
Sorry, stillhateyou, but I don't think this is best we're going to get. I believe we can do better. You are giving up way too easy.
stillhateyouAug 13, 2010
I challenge you to come up with a *realistic* scenario in which we get something better. For starters, you have to come up with some reasonable way for the Democrats to not lose seats in Congress in the upcoming election. If you can't do that, then net neutrality is dead in the water.
You call it giving up, I call it being practical and realistic... tempering my desires with the facts of the world around me. Given the last 30 years of American leadership, I think my cynicism is well justified.
d4nie1Aug 13, 2010
It's a ridiculous exaggeration to say that if the Democrats lose any seats in November that net neutrality is forever dead. It's very simple. We have to make the people aware of what net neutrality is and encourage people to pressure their congressmen no matter if they be blue or red. If any provider does start charging websites for priority bandwidth then we have to protest extremely loudly.
Net neutrality is not a highly controversial Dems vs. Pubs issue like abortion rights or gay marriage. This is something I think almost everyone will be behind once they know what it is. If we speak out for it then we can win this one, regardless of whether or not a few more Pubs get into office.
stillhateyouAug 13, 2010
" We have to make the people aware of what net neutrality is and encourage people to pressure their congressmen no matter if they be blue or red."
You have more faith in the voting public than I do.
"Net neutrality is not a highly controversial Dems vs. Pubs issue like abortion rights or gay marriage."
It's not highly controversial, but that's only because few in the general population understand or give a s**t. The Republican party establishment, however, does care, and are firmly against net neutrality, and you can bet your ass that they'd use cries of socialism and fascism to get their base riled up and angry over the evil government for interfering with private industry if the Democrats did try to pass net neutrality legislation.
d4nie1Aug 13, 2010
Well we'll see what happens. No harm in trying right? I'm going to be very vocal about this and I think there are a lot of others who will be too, especially if and when any provider actually starts playing favorites with websites traffic.
darkshroudAug 12, 2010
Net Neutrality can have different meanings.
I would prefer a limited versions were types of services are treated the same. Like Youtube vs Hulu vs Netflix Streaming. Each one streams video and needs large amounts of bandwidth. Email & HTML should not have access to the same amount of bandwidth as HD video or something like a VoiP call because they do not need it.
A certain amount of network management is a good thing.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pw378Aug 12, 2010
"There can be no compromise here."
Do you understand physics? Do you understand RF Spectrum?
Do you have any idea what happens if 5 million Americans all decide to watch American Idol on their cell phone at 7pm? Without allowing QoS and network management, the cell network collapsed, 911 calls fail, calls to your friends fail, texting fails, everything wireless fails.
Imagine if everyone wanted their own personal CB radio channel... We'd run out of radio spectrum after a few hundred people.
Wireless is a SHARED SPECTRUM - you can't just lay more spectrum to increase bandwidth!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
thechauvinistAug 12, 2010
...or can you?...
mithrasinvictusAug 12, 2010
So don't give them unlimited data plans if the network can't handle it.
philiastraszAug 12, 2010
It isn't that clear-cut. The constitution and the bill of rights grant you negative rights - i.e. that you will be able to speak your mind or own firearms. It doesn't say that the government/corporations have to provide you with a megaphone to speak your mind or that the govt has to buy you guys. You are free to acquire them on your own.
What's different about net neutrality is that in order for you to have internet access, someone else must build the cables and run the routers etc. Typically it's done by telecom corporations and you pay for them as a business purchase. This falls under commerce and free/fair business transactions. It is not about inherent rights.
While I agree with the principles of net neutrality in general, you'd be pushing it too far to say it is equivalent to free speech. They are not the same. One is a negative right (you are free to exercise it yourself, noone is obligated to help you use it) and the other is a positive right (someone else has to provide it to you - usually as part of a business transaction.)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bungdiddyAug 12, 2010
The idea of net neutrality is that the internet belongs to the human race - not the shareholders of the company that laid the copper and fiber in our ground.
philiastraszAug 12, 2010
You speak of 'the internet' as if it is a single object - it isn't. It is made of contents and services, running on servers, being transmitted through cables or other medias, going through routers, and 'directorized' by dns servers. Most of these components are created or bought by various individuals, corporations, and nations. These ownerships are spread across various entities, and they do not belong to this abstract entity you called 'humanity' any more than the cheeseburger I bought today belong to other members of society. Humanity is free to create a better cheeseburger for the good of the human race if it so wishes, but it has no right to take my private property without my consent. That is theft.
The contents of each website belongs to the people/corporations that own that website. I have a personal website where I write about topics that interest me, and no, it does not belong to you or this 'human race' in anyway. it is mine to do with as I please. No 'humanity' has any say to what I want to do with my website. You can make your own website if you wish, but you have no right to interfere with mine. Similarly, google.com belongs to the corporation Google just as facebook.com belongs to the corporation Facebook. 'Humanity' isn't part of the equation.
The cables that connect one center to another belongs to the people/corporations/government that laid those cables. They bought the cable. They laid the cable. It is theirs. Humanity has no claim on these coppers and plastic that were bought and paid for by others.
The routers that route packets from one machine to another belongs to whoever owns that router. It doesn't belong to 'humanity' or any one else. If I have a router in my home network, it is mine to do as I please. I can even turn it off or destroy it if I want. Humanity can go build/buy its own router, but leave mine alone.
The dns is possibly the only thing that can be said to be owned by 'humanity', though in practice they are managed by neutral organizations such as ICANN. Even then, countries (such as China) are known to run their own dns system, which belongs to them, and not anyone else's business. Some corporations run their own dns services as well (see OpenDNS). Their system is theirs to do as they please and doesn't belong to humanity either.
'The internet' as you called it is made of many components, most of which are private properties and belong to their respective owners. If people or governments want to come together and build a globally-owned collection of websites, cables, routers, and dns resolution systems, by all means, please do. Many organizations and governments are in fact doing this in one form or another. But such effort must not involve the seizure of private property. The concept that property can be privately held and free from seizure by others is a fundamental part of modern society and must not be violated, not even for net neutrality.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 12, 2010
How about the one where everything you know as "the internet" is all run and owned by private companies and they can do this s**t if they want and if you don't like it you can not buy their services??????
Does that sound like a good argument? Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
d4nie1Aug 12, 2010
No. Letting corporations do whatever they want is what leads to things like disastrous oil spills.
thechauvinistAug 12, 2010
The way I see it, corporations who maintain the infrastructure of the internet are interested in creating a market for profit where there was none before.
All of a sudden, websites are being forced to pay for increased bandwidth & pass their costs onto the end-users (us). Websites that don't pay more for increased bandwidth fail for running slowly on users' machines.
siskorabanAug 12, 2010
I see where the other side is coming from...
"But what about all the MONEY???"
homercles337Aug 11, 2010
Why all this wired/wireless distinction? Wireless carriers are only "wireless" once the signal gets to the nearest cell tower, then its on fibre. What am i missing?
dig1xAug 12, 2010
You're correct. It's Google talking out of both sides of their mouth.
pw378Aug 12, 2010
Wireless has limited bandwidth, even in a 10 mile cell. Smart phones with data are exploding, and these people want to stream live video all damn day long on the "unlimited data plan". This is not a maintainable situation long term.
You can just create more RF spectrum out of thin air! (no pun intended)
myztryAug 12, 2010
They are probably scared that it could require them to provide equal access to cell towers by other parties at a wholesale rate. Then coverage becomes a non-issue as everyone has the same coverage.
If an Internet capable device such as a mobile phone seeks to access the Internet via a competitors cell tower and they don't allow it at any price, then they are not being "net neutral".
azurfireAug 11, 2010
I was excited about this at first. But now it just seems scary. Meh.
mweatherAug 12, 2010
It's not an agreement, it's a proposal, and if you think a proposal by a wireless carrier to exempt themselves is going to be taken seriously, I've got a bridge you might be interested in. The news here isn't that a major carrier wants to exempt itself, it's that a major carrier thinks everyone else should play by the FCC's rules. That's what the FCC is going to pay attention to.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gusterbearAug 12, 2010
To be fair, they think only half of their business should be exempt, they do run FiOS and DSL.
stillhateyouAug 12, 2010
This issue highlights a problem with digg. There's far too much groupthink and a conversation on an issue dealing in subtleties is impossible. The comments on stories dealing with this issue make Slashdot look like the paragon of civil and rational discourse where things aren't defined in black and white.
Closed AccountAug 12, 2010
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/j9HsfdrMUc5nPK1nfTQlHEa2wl2gCdVaw7wgAEoihvU?feat=embedwebsite
pxtlAug 12, 2010
tl;dr: Net Neutrality is good, except for Google Droid, where it's bad.
You know that whole "don't be evil" thing?
Yeah.... about that....
tpstigersAug 12, 2010
Much of this debate is idiocy. It's idiocy because the people involved in the debate don't actually know what 'net neutrality' means. A commenter above compares it to free speech. This is ridiculous. Net neutrality is not - nor is it about - a basic human right. A neutral net would be one in which no provider is allowed to base charges according to site visited or service used. Period. It's not about good versus evil, it's not about corporations versus the little guy, it's not about us versus them. What it is about is who pays for what. Should I get better access than you because I pay more? Should Google's service get priority bandwidth because they pay more?
We tend to all stand up and yell 'No!' in response. But should we?
Do you get more cable channels than me? Probably. Why? Because you pay for it.
Do I get faster upload and download speeds? Yes. Why? Because I pay for it.
Do you get unlimited data on your iPhone? Yes. Why? Because you pay for it.
Does the cable company dedicate more resources to you than me because you pay for more? Yes.
Does my ISP dedicate more resources to me because I pay for more? Yes.
Does your cell phone provider dedicate more resources to you and your iPhone because you pay for it? Yes.
Do the math, people.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gusterbearAug 12, 2010
Don't know why people are digging you down, this is a pretty spot on concept of net neutrality.
tpstigersAug 12, 2010
They're digging me down because they don't want to hear the truth.
seriouzbidnezzAug 12, 2010
We're digging you down because you don't understand what's going on. You can currently pay for higher download/upload speeds (most cable and internet companies offer different tiers of service). That's not what net neutrality is about. It's about large corporations choosing how to handle how your bandwidth functions based on their promotional contracts, corporate interests, or overhead costs.
tpstigersAug 12, 2010
Don't be stupid. Large corporations have been choosing how to handle our bandwidth functions for years, You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
seriouzbidnezzAug 12, 2010
Just because certain companies have poor policies about handling some traffic, like torrents etc, doesn't mean that they should be allowed to do it
pw378Aug 12, 2010
You don't seem to understand Google's position on Net Neutrality either.
tpstigersAug 12, 2010
Try not to be stupid. Everything about Google has always been about QOS. The fact that you currently disagree with them doesn't change this.
bartledooAug 12, 2010
Using the TV analogy, it's not really about paying more or fewer channels for different prices. It would be like the cable company charging different rates for different channels. No, actually it would be more like higher paying channels being broadcast in 1080p HD while others only get 720p or lower quality resolution.
jspegeleAug 12, 2010
You don't understand the concept. This is not about an ISP charging you more for more bandwidth, it is about an ISP charging websites for bandwidth. For example, without Net Neutrality, Verizon could get into bed with, let's say, Hulu, and decide that it is going to give Hulu a large chunk of bandwidth, and Netflix a much smaller chunk. That would mean Hulu's service would work great for Verizion customers, but netflix would lag terribly, effectively killing Netflix for Verizon customers. You would have not say in it. You would not be able to use Netflix unless you switched ISPs.
tpstigersAug 13, 2010
Of course I understand the concept. What you have described is normal business practice. And I think you're taking a rather naive view of the whole thing. If Verizon got in bed with Hulu, it wouldn't result in the death of Netflix for Verizon's customers. It would instead mean that Netflix would only perform acceptably for Verizon customers who were willing to pay for it. Do you really think Verizon would sign away this sort of potential revenue stream?
Also, if Hulu approaches Verizon and proposes a deal, do you think Verizon would fail to see if Netflix would offer a better deal? Again - just normal business practice. What makes you think the internet should be exempt from the free market (and what makes you think the market doesn't already control it)?
davidtcAug 12, 2010
Saying the internet is like a highway doesn't sound like net neutrality to me. I see carpool lanes on most major highways which let traffic for certain cars travel faster that other cars. Also carpools get free/cheaper bridge crossings. Sounds like Google is trying to make the internet like a highway, with carpool lanes.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
toastjamAug 12, 2010
Why are they shaking with their left hands in that photo??
imaclover65Aug 12, 2010
I use an ISP called Optimum Online, and I think they're doing something to the "toll fast lane" effect. They have Optimum Online (which is 10 mb/s), Optimum Online Boost (30 mb/s), and Optimum Online Ultra (they claim it's 100 mb/s).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pw378Aug 12, 2010
This is entirely unrelated. If they sold you a "MSN" package with high-speed Bing!, Hotmail, and Live and delivered Gmail and Yahoo! at 28.8bps, then it would be a problem.
addiktionAug 12, 2010
Companies should be allowed to offer different packages at different speeds. No one is debating that really. Soon they will probably even have cap limits on each different package so you'll eventually hit a wall on how much you can consume at once. But like pw378 said, as long as they aren't offering favored or unfavored sites at different speeds then you have to go with the flow unfortunately of speed limits and data caps.
wheresjimAug 12, 2010
Let me explain and simplify it further- we're getting f**ked over as usual.
dig1xAug 12, 2010
And it's _f**kING GOOGLE_ that is starting this.
pw378Aug 12, 2010
wrong.
krandenAug 12, 2010
The second allows for “differentiated managed services” that would be exempt from the neutrality given to other traffic. The document gives the examples of “health care monitoring, gaming, smart grid, and advanced educational services.” Although it explicitly claims these could not be use to circumvent rules, it provides no guidelines for which types of services warrant exemption and which belong in the same stream as everyone else.
Read this carefully.
lordbeakerAug 12, 2010
"The first, and most broad, basically exempts wireless carriers from all the rules except transparency. In other words, they can play favorites and route traffic however they want, as long as they tell us how they’re doing it"
And the telecom industry is made up of what??? 3-5 companies?
So basically, Yes. You would end Net Neutrality. You are welcome to utilize the competition however.... oh wait... there is none.
philiastraszAug 12, 2010
To keep things in perspective, remember that right now there is no law protecting net neutrality *at all*. The FCC tried to flex their muscle but the federal appeal court ruled against them earlier in April, if you didn't read the news.
Here's the court ruling against the FCC in favor of comcast.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/technology/07net.html
Right now we have no law protecting net neutrality on either wireline or wireless. Carriers such as comcast aree free to - and in some cases have in fact been - blocking and throttling traffic with no regulation and no transparency - at all. While the Google/Verizon proposal doesn't completely fix the problem, it is fixing ~half of the problem. It establishes net neutrality on wireline and at least provide transparency on the wireless. it is a step forward, even if it doesn't go all the way. Yet some people consider it somehow to be making things worse than if it were never proposed.
Sounds to me like a glass half full vs glass half empty. Except remember the glass is completely empty right now. If you have a way to get a full glass, by all means, that is the ideal solution. If not, I call this a glass half-full solution.
sonicpentatonicAug 12, 2010
Why are the men in the lead-in picture shaking with their left hands?
pagangodAug 12, 2010
Here's the problem-- no one wants people to start using tethered phones to download torrents, but it's almost impossible to put together a policy that would provide a decent user experience for the majority without opening the door to abuse by the carriers.
By suggesting that the carriers have to publish how they mess with your access, you at least can make some choices-- AT&T is going to throttle Break.com? Screw them, I'll use T-Mobile, because I never look at FunnyOrDie anyway.
The alternative is the cable modem crap we all lived with back at the end of the 90s-- everyone getting online at once, with a few jerks seriously dragging down the whole neighborhood.
So the question is really what do you think is the worse evil-- having some sites or services being slower than others, or having a universally bad experience?
Personally, I don't see the issue where I use my phone the majority of the time, so I'd prefer to roll the dice and NOT allow them to restrict my access.
People trying to use an iPhone in NYC and SF might disagree.
bartledooAug 12, 2010
Or they could make you pay per MB like a lot of wireless carriers already do. That way if you want to download an HD movie via tethering, you can, but you just have to pay extra for the privilege.
rexofvicisAug 12, 2010
I disagree with allowing corporations to be involved in the process of making laws. Particularly when it has to do with something as particular as this. Net neutrality is a necessity for the citizen because if corporations are aloud to sway what we view by regulating bandwidth distribution then the internet would be at risk for corporate takeover. The average user of the internet who does not have the viable income to purchase more bandwidth would loose out and be in a competitively handicap position.
Now allowing corporations to devise the schematics of how the internet should be regulated is dangerous, as the article states, "Many critics also question why the FCC is asking the companies it should be regulating for input on how they should be regulated – like a parent asking a four-year-old what would be a reasonable bed time." The corporations could be proposing an idea which is superficially beneficial for all the users of the internet. Although in due time, if not immediately, loops holes or cracks in this 'proposed legislation' would be identifiable. Later they would be exploited. Simply put the kid will ensure that even though the parent selects the time, it will be in the benefit of the kid.
It is better if the government creates a board of review which includes a wide variety of scholars that include business men (but not the majority) to create a more equality-based approach to creating something as significant as Net Neutrality.
jessedyerAug 12, 2010
So corporations simply start buying the scholars as well as the politicians. What, you thought "scholars" were perfect moral beings?
illestlyricsAug 12, 2010
I hate the word verizon.
Closed AccountAug 12, 2010
Sounds like what happened with the Minerals Management Service and BP. MMS was taking orders from BP.
phrstbrnAug 12, 2010
This article is FUD FUD FUD. I'm a big supporter of net neutrality, but this article is just being alarmist, and missing some of the good points of the agreement.
On wired networks, they agreed to not discriminate data based on source, however, they are allowed to discriminate based on type of data. I don't see how this is a bad thing. What this means for end users: My real-time sensitive VoIP call will get priority over somebody's torrent, but Vonage phone calls are not allowed to get priority over Skype calls. I don't see how this is a bad thing, it makes sense. This is not the same thing as throttling, it's priority based on how real-time sensitive the data is.
They also made rules about how they have to be transparent about it, so if they are doing it, they have to tell you they're doing it.
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.
ort888Aug 12, 2010
**** APPLE AND STEVE JOBS and uh... wait, who are we talking about again?
ort888Aug 12, 2010
Because it's in direct conflict with the "google/android=good, apple=bad" Digg hivemind.
If Apple had done the exact same thing with AT&T it would have 10,000 diggs right now.