Google announces deal with Verizion, it's worse than expected
122 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Splurgy_A;23964404]I read the whole thing.
No, no they musn't. The internet is a beautiful thing; ok it's stupid and and times dangerous, but it's [i]humanity[/i]. As soon as you make it so ISPs can profit off of the internet, you destroy that. Look at what happened to professional sports - from people enjoying a kick around and having people watch to a multi billion pound industry which prices the original fans out of the network and results in hideously over inflated wages.
If you removed net neutrality, the people in charge of ISPs would become very wealthy people but at the cost of the internet. I'm sick of profiteering ruining things. I don't care if the ISPs think it's unfair that they don't get to control what runs through their "pipes" - for once, why don't we decide not to allow free for all capitalism ruin something nice?[/QUOTE]
Well you seem to have a problem with money so why don't you read [url=http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/economics/money/1826-Franciscos-Money-Speech.html]THIS[/url] as well.
However you've yet to cite an actual way in which ISP's making money would "ruin" the internet, or how the existence of the NHL or NFL has "ruined" sports for that matter.
All you've put fourth so far is that people involved in both these industries have committed the terrible hubris of being compensated for their services.
Had I the money, I'd start my own ISP.
[QUOTE=Novistador;23964722]You have no idea what the word "Objective" means.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for not letting me know, then
[QUOTE=Rasrap Smurf;23964715]
From what I've read so far, it seems like it's saying that the end (letting ISPs apparently give better services to the majority of its customers) justify the means (loss of net-neutrality)
[/QUOTE]
Thats not a case of the ends justiying the means, it is adherance to the principles of individual rights, in this case private property, and an explantion of how this adherance is benificial.
Its not the weighing of two contradictory principles and then selection of the one with the most immediate range of the moment reward.
[QUOTE=Novistador;23964228]Net neutrality isn't all its cracked up to be, and ultimately your not benefiting from having a "neutral" internet.
[url=http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-winter/net-neutrality.asp]THIS[/url] article really puts the whole issue in perspective[/QUOTE]
I read a bit of it and i see its implying that internet needs management and some form of leadership. Well watch this video and look at just how well it applies to the internet, It works without need of any management.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlzilMXWMcg[/media]
This article tells me more about Huffington Post than it does about Google and Verizon. (e.g. they are scaremongering retards)
Guys guys guys, I have an idea. We need to get the juggalos the have their music festival in front of googles HQ. That will surely solve everything
[QUOTE=Novistador;23964722]You have no idea what the word "Objective" means.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Google Define]Definitions of objective on the Web:
undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; "an objective appraisal"; "objective evidence"[/Quote]
(Definition ironically found via Google)
MegaJohnny was right in his usage of objective, it's basically free of one's personal opinions. The article you linked was a [b]subjective[/b] look at net neutrality.
this is bullshit.
I said it before and I say it again.
Lets start a new network. I got a few unused Cisco routers and some Wifi suff. We can call it Outernet, so nobody will suspect anything. We will have to start from Prague in Czech Republic through, I don't have money for a plane ticket.
If this happens, I'll just create my own ISP and have it the way things used to be, then everyone will come to me and I will destroy their market.
I find it kind of ominous that ted stevens was confirmed dead just a little while after this
[QUOTE=ThePutty;23963271]
Oh god please no, the last thing we need is a bunch of people in guy fawkes masks standing around google headquarters embarrassing everybody.[/QUOTE]
"HURRRR 4CHAN SUX, GUY FAWKES MASK FAGGOTS LOL EPIC FAIL"
Their protests worked, they managed to gain public attention and spread all the nasty facts about Scientology to the point where Fox News actually backed them up. Which is quite radical given how they love 4chan and /b/'s "bomb threats". Nowadays, sponsors of the Scientology have cut their deals, the millionaire members refuse to talk about it and reject even knowing the whole thing, and Scientology is losing members a lot more than they gain.
Even more of an interesting point was how scientology abused their contacts during the protests by calling out the polices to "contain" the peaceful protests, tried to play the lawsuit game on the revealed anons, and at one point some leading scientology member brought a gun to "protect" himself during the protests.
i wish congress was more aware on how important net neutrality is so they could make a law against this shit.
[QUOTE=veribigbos1;23962835]Everyone is already using Firefox, Opera or some Chromium-based browser instead of Chrome.[/QUOTE]
wrongwrongwrongwrongwrong
Well this sucks.
Fuck google.
[QUOTE=Novistador;23964729]Well you seem to have a problem with money so why don't you read [url=http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/economics/money/1826-Franciscos-Money-Speech.html]THIS[/url] as well.
However you've yet to cite an actual way in which ISP's making money would "ruin" the internet, or how the existence of the NHL or NFL has "ruined" sports for that matter.
All you've put fourth so far is that people involved in both these industries have committed the terrible hubris of being compensated for their services.[/QUOTE]
At the risk of sounding closed minded, I am disinclined to listen to anyone who takes Ayn Rand's Objectivism seriously. If I may argue about things that read coherently, going back to your first article:
[quote]By declaring that consumers are “entitled” to an “open” and “interconnected” Internet, the FCC is declaring ISPs to be rights-less public servants who must pay for and build Internet infrastructure—and then turn it over to Web surfers and FCC bureaucrats for them to use and abuse as they see fit. [/quote]
Do you see what your article just said? It's saying that ISPs shouldn't have to put supplying a wonderful open and interconnected internet ahead of profit.
It's saying that it would be ok with an amazingly powerful network that allows unprecedented freedom and innovation being turned into a money spinning device.
I'll tell you how professional sports have ruined sports. When my Dad was little, he supported Tottenham Hotspurs. A working man could go down with his son to the stadium and watch footballers kick a ball about. Now a working man would be lucky to afford to do this two or three times a year, and you have to pay to watch most football on TV thanks to the likes of Sky Sports.
What was originally a bunch of people coming together to play football and have other people watch is entirely removed from that, with only the wealthy being able to afford to regularly view it. The fun's gone out of football, with large teams being simply bought and good footballers being kept on the bench just so they won't be competition.
That's ruined football. I don't want that to happen to the internet. Why should ISPs be able to pick and choose what websites are accessible? ISPs are providing the "tubes" for internet to flow through, and that's how it should stay - NO filtering or premium pipes. As soon as you let fat cats start picking and choosing what to do, it goes wrong because they're only about profit and if they can slash costs while maintaining profitability they'll do it, and if slashing those costs means ruining the internet experience they won't have any qualms about it.
This is what happens when we doubt the government. The FCC was going to help the public on this one and they got yelled at.
If you want to know what Google is actually doing instead of what HuffPo is SAYING they're doing, [url=http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-for-open-internet.html]get it from the fucking horse's mouth.[/url] Or for those who don't want to click away:
[quote][b]A joint policy proposal for an open Internet[/b]
Posted by Alan Davidson, Google director of public policy and Tom Tauke, Verizon executive vice president of public affairs, policy, and communications
The original architects of the Internet got the big things right. By making the network open, they enabled the greatest exchange of ideas in history. By making the Internet scalable, they enabled explosive innovation in the infrastructure.
It is imperative that we find ways to protect the future openness of the Internet and encourage the rapid deployment of broadband. Verizon and Google are pleased to discuss the principled compromise our companies have developed over the last year concerning the thorny issue of “network neutrality.”
In October, our two companies issued a shared statement of principles on network neutrality. A few months later we submitted a joint filing to the FCC, and in an April joint op-ed our CEOs discussed their common interest in an open Internet. Since that time, we have listened to all sides of the debate, engaged in good faith with policy makers in multiple venues, and challenged each other to craft a balanced policy framework. We have been guided by the two main goals:
1. Users should choose what content, applications, or devices they use, since openness has been central to the explosive innovation that has made the Internet a transformative medium.
2. America must continue to encourage both investment and innovation to support the underlying broadband infrastructure; it is imperative for our global competitiveness.
Today our CEOs will announce a proposal that we hope will make a constructive contribution to the dialogue. Our joint proposal takes the form of a suggested legislative framework for consideration by lawmakers, and is laid out here. Below we discuss the seven key elements:
First, both companies have long been proponents of the FCC’s current wireline broadband openness principles, which ensure that consumers have access to all legal content on the Internet, and can use what applications, services, and devices they choose. The enforceability of those principles was called into serious question by the recent Comcast court decision. Our proposal would now make those principles fully enforceable at the FCC.
Second, we agree that in addition to these existing principles there should be a new, enforceable prohibition against discriminatory practices. This means that for the first time, wireline broadband providers would not be able to discriminate against or prioritize lawful Internet content, applications or services in a way that causes harm to users or competition.
Importantly, this new nondiscrimination principle includes a presumption against prioritization of Internet traffic - including paid prioritization. So, in addition to not blocking or degrading of Internet content and applications, wireline broadband providers also could not favor particular Internet traffic over other traffic.
Third, it’s important that the consumer be fully informed about their Internet experiences. Our proposal would create enforceable transparency rules, for both wireline and wireless services. Broadband providers would be required to give consumers clear, understandable information about the services they offer and their capabilities. Broadband providers would also provide to application and content providers information about network management practices and any other information they need to ensure that they can reach consumers.
Fourth, because of the confusion about the FCC’s authority following the Comcast court decision, our proposal spells out the FCC’s role and authority in the broadband space. In addition to creating enforceable consumer protection and nondiscrimination standards that go beyond the FCC’s preexisting consumer safeguards, the proposal also provides for a new enforcement mechanism for the FCC to use. Specifically, the FCC would enforce these openness policies on a case-by-case basis, using a complaint-driven process. The FCC could move swiftly to stop a practice that violates these safeguards, and it could impose a penalty of up to $2 million on bad actors.
Fifth, we want the broadband infrastructure to be a platform for innovation. Therefore, our proposal would allow broadband providers to offer additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services (such as Verizon's FIOS TV) offered today. This means that broadband providers can work with other players to develop new services. It is too soon to predict how these new services will develop, but examples might include health care monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services, or new entertainment and gaming options. Our proposal also includes safeguards to ensure that such online services must be distinguishable from traditional broadband Internet access services and are not designed to circumvent the rules. The FCC would also monitor the development of these services to make sure they don’t interfere with the continued development of Internet access services.
Sixth, we both recognize that wireless broadband is different from the traditional wireline world, in part because the mobile marketplace is more competitive and changing rapidly. In recognition of the still-nascent nature of the wireless broadband marketplace, under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency requirement. In addition, the Government Accountability Office would be required to report to Congress annually on developments in the wireless broadband marketplace, and whether or not current policies are working to protect consumers.
Seventh, and finally, we strongly believe that it is in the national interest for all Americans to have broadband access to the Internet. Therefore, we support reform of the Federal Universal Service Fund, so that it is focused on deploying broadband in areas where it is not now available.
We believe this policy framework properly empowers consumers and gives the FCC a role carefully tailored for the new world of broadband, while also allowing broadband providers the flexibility to manage their networks and provide new types of online services.
Ultimately, we think this proposal provides the certainty that allows both web startups to bring their novel ideas to users, and broadband providers to invest in their networks.
Crafting a compromise proposal has not been an easy process, and we have certainly had our differences along the way. But what has kept us moving forward is our mutual interest in a healthy and growing Internet that can continue to be a laboratory for innovation. As policy makers continue to formulate the rules of the road, we hope that other stakeholders will join with us in providing constructive ideas for an open Internet policy that puts consumers in charge and enhances America’s leadership in the broadband world. We stand ready to work with the Congress, the FCC and all interested parties to do just that. [/quote]
[QUOTE=InvisibleTed;23965194](Definition ironically found via Google)
[quote=google definition of objective]Definitions of objective on the Web:
undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; "an objective appraisal"; "objective evidence"
[/quote]
MegaJohnny was right in his usage of objective, it's basically free of one's personal opinions. The article you linked was a [b]subjective[/b] look at net neutrality.[/QUOTE]
Indeed, for someone to think objectively means they formed an idea by observing reality and forming conclusions based on what they observe. It means that they did not deliberately distort the facts because they had already made up their mind, and that they did not evade the facts because they wished to avoid their consequences.
It is the idea that observation of reality is impossible, and that human beings are genetically embedded with innate conclusions they cannot change or analyze that motivates people to say that in order to be objective one must throw away any personal evaluation to the subject at hand.
It is in ones self interest to not evade the facts, and to form ones conclusions based on observations, not the other way around.
Objectivity and personal evaluation/interest are not mutually exclusive.
[editline]05:09PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Splurgy_A;23967274]
Do you see what your article just said? It's saying that ISPs shouldn't have to put supplying a wonderful open and interconnected internet ahead of profit.
It's saying that it would be ok with an amazingly powerful network that allows unprecedented freedom and innovation being turned into a money spinning device.
[/QUOTE]
Ignoring your obvious contempt for the profit motive, and money in general,
I will put fourth that its profit that drives innovation, just like you said the internet is a billion dollar industry, same with sports, and theres more than one ISP and professional sports team out there.
If these groups want to have as much profits as possible they need to keep thinking up ways to give you more features than their competitor for a lower price than they charge.
It's the same with sports teams, if they want people to come watch their games and pay them money, their going to need to provide an amazing show of skill to entertain the spectators, this requires highly skilled individuals who are in short supply and high demand, if they wish to keep providing a high level of skill at their games their going to have to pay these athletes enough to keep them from signing up with someone else. Although I challenge your statement that all professional sport league games are so expensive only the very wealthy can attend them (thats at least not the case with hockey in north america), nothing prevents someone from attending a amateur or less skilled league game (if they so value people just kicking the ball around for fun) at a cost that is often non existent or very cheap.
If an ISP were to institute a pricing policy similar to satellite TV (as that image seems to suggest) I can guarantee that most of their customers would flock like rabid sheep on rockets to their competitor, making the increased profits from the new payment plan non existent. Even in some strange nightmare scenario where every ISP in a certain area institutes the satellite plan in some evil conspiracy to provide terrible service, all that would do is open up opportunity for new businesses to start up with the standard internet plan and steal with conspirators business.
Whats even more important is that there is absolutely no reason for all ISP's to enter into such a conspiracy. Just as you said their greedy and are very concerned with profits, and the only people who would benefit from a deal where all ISP's provide terrible service for high prices would be the ISP that is unable to maintain customers otherwise. Any competent ISP that entered into the agreement would gain nothing, but lose the ability to provide better service and gain new customers, and essentially feed business to their competitors while detracting from their own.
The point here is that profits don't retard innovation, but drive it.
and that it is a silly complaint that one can't enjoy professional level sports, or lightning fast internet service without paying the cost of such a thing.
Got a tl;dr version? I'm kinda tired.
What its saying is that wireless internet is not ready for net neutrality and that ISP's should be able to make their own additional services which is a pretty huge loophole.
Google, I have a question. WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENED? /caps.
Wireless phone networks are not ready, that's true. But there's no non-bullshit reason for restricting content access on wirelines.
going to the huffington post for news on net neutrality is like going to fox news to read about the democratic platform
[editline]05:13PM[/editline]
especially when the statement google released is short and available to read on the internet
Google being evil isn't new. It's just they've got a good PR campaign.
this article is doing nothing but scaremongering. Huffington post is about as bad a source as The Onion
And I thought google was all for net neutrality :frown:
[QUOTE=Crypto356;23970740]And I thought google was all for net neutrality :frown:[/QUOTE]
They are for net neutrality only because they dominate the web
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.