| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| TastyNutz |
Posted - 10 August 2010 : 00:24:21
Sounds like an unholy alliance to me. Is the "death of the internet as we know it" an exaggeration or will big corporations ruin yet another good thing? |
| 3 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Carefree |
Posted - 10 August 2010 : 04:38:04
I think that it cannot have any good outcome. To expect people to believe that Google will send all of its content via Verizon without making some sort of business deal is ludicrous. You can definitely expect prioritization of content, with Google sites and services loading much faster than Microsoft's or anyone else's. They say that throttling would be prohibited ... but how else would Google benefit from going to bed with Verizon?
For those who pay for maximum bandwidth speeds already, you are being royally screwed if you will have to pay additional premiums in order to (a) play games, (b) watch multimedia, (c) are software developers who test large programs, etc. "Additional differentiated services" - nothing that is described is anything new to the internet ... just some of the most popular and bandwidth intensive applications ... so they can make more money for selling things twice. Anyone paying for internet access who has to pay additionally for using Google/Verizon specified content should be able to sue for breach of contract. Further, the ISPs who double-charge for access should have to face jail time for grand larceny ... they didn't develop the content and it shouldn't be theirs to sell.
The limitation on penalties which could be imposed on offenders is a joke. $2 million? For a company like Google? They could get fined $2 million every day and laugh on the way to the bank.
The claim that wireless and wired internet are different is also a farce. "under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency requirement." In other words, Verizon would NOT have to comply with the standards they are trying to enforce on ISPs who use wired connections.
On top of everything else, they want the federal government (through taxes) to subsidize their increasing wireless services to less developed regions of the country. Before Google became a wireless provider, the dearth of wireless internet in remote areas never seemed to be a big concern. Now it is apparently keeping the CEOs from sleeping at night, so they want taxpayers in the cities to pay for wireless internet towers in the boondocks. |
| Doug G |
Posted - 10 August 2010 : 04:08:27
From what I read about the proposed deal, it sounded more like a threat to cable and broadcasters, not net neutrality. If you're not in a FIOS area you may not be aware that Verizon is already a TV programming provider, and has been for at least two or three years. They offer the equivalent of cable TV programming over FIOS.
The small bit I read sounded like a deal to let Google be the equivalent of the channel tuner, and TV's would have an Internet connection built-in to "tune" to the desired media.
|
| MarcelG |
Posted - 10 August 2010 : 03:02:52
It's a slippy slope, but then again that's the whole idea behind capitalism. You get what you pay for....
However, from what I've read Google is denying being any negotiations which would conflict with the thought of net-neutrality.
My opinion: I think that net-neutrality will be a thing of the past in a couple of years, just as world peace. We all like to have it, but we don't want to do anything for it. |
|
|
