• Google announces deal with Verizion, it's worse than expected
    122 replies, posted
[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;23970658]this article is doing nothing but scaremongering.[/QUOTE] The truth is scary.
[QUOTE=DamagePoint;23972329]The truth is scary.[/QUOTE] You seem to have missed the part where I said Huffington Post is a terrible source. Nothing in that article has any amount of truth to it.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;23972370]You seem to have missed the part where I said Huffington Post is a terrible source. Nothing in that article has any amount of truth to it.[/QUOTE] Everything in the article is in Google's blog post. Either you didn't read it or you don't want to accept that Google would ever do anything bad. Which is not the case.
Fuck google for trying to monopolize the internet.
Um... can someone explain to me if this is really whats happening? Because CNN is explaining it A LOT differently, and I feel like CNN is more credible than HuffPo. [url]http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/09/technology/google_verizon/index.htm[/url]
[QUOTE=Nyaos;23973375]Um... can someone explain to me if this is really whats happening? Because CNN is explaining it A LOT differently, and I feel like CNN is more credible than HuffPo. [URL]http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/09/technology/google_verizon/index.htm[/URL][/QUOTE] That article seems to be the complete opposite of Huffington Post article. If that's true, then it's not that bad.
Didn't google deny this?
I'm reading that this story is really complicated, and apparently the thing I linked is Google's happy news that they want us to hear, while they worked a different deal underneath it. I don't know. Google has changed so much for the worse over the years. Money corrupts all.
CNN tends to be a bit more levelheaded, if not more boring than most other news outlet. I tend to weigh their take on subjects a bit more heavily than other news sources. Plus, HuffPo classifies itself as "Breaking News and Opinion," so take their report with a grain of salt. Anyway, the FCC has categorized the internet as written speech, rather than broadcasted, so they would do very little to encourage censorship, regulation, or allow ISPs to make websites and services to have a priority over others.
So is the FCC the good guy or the bad guy?
The good guy, if they can stop this.
[URL=http://filesmelt.com/][IMG]http://filesmelt.com/dl/Capture1234567891011121314151617181920212223.PNG[/IMG][/URL] :siren:[B][highlight]RIOT![/highlight][/B]:siren: Jokes aside though, I'm really not sure what to think of this. Still the principal of the internet being like cable TV is really unattractive, and if the trend continues it could get nasty. Still it's only an idea proposed by google. If there's someone to boycott, it would be the ISPs who propagate this idea.
[QUOTE=bl4h;23973480]That article seems to be the complete opposite of Huffington Post article. If that's true, then it's not that bad.[/QUOTE] CNN and Huffington Post are reporting on the same thing, but Huffington Post is twisting things around and trying to make it look as bad as possible. You should read the actual proposal Huffington Post linked. It really isn't as bad as they make it out to be.
[QUOTE=Nyaos;23974996]I'm reading that this story is really complicated, and apparently the thing I linked is Google's happy news that they want us to hear, while they worked a different deal underneath it. I don't know. Google has changed so much for the worse over the years. Money corrupts all.[/QUOTE] Pretty much. It sounds good on the outside, but if you take a look at the language, the way they worded it makes it so that it is open to all sorts of loopholes that would not be there if they were against net neutrality. This line in particular: [QUOTE=Google Public Policy Blog]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.[/QUOTE] Which basically leaves it so openended that isp's can do anything they want as long as they don't completely block certain sites. But that still doesn't mean they can't cut bandwidth to other sites and give Google and Twitter much faster speeds than the competition. If Google truly was for Net neutrality the part after the comma would not be there. Which makes you wonder what their true motivations are.
one day the internet will be just like TV, you'll have to order what websites you want to access. But hopefully this will spawn a new internet that will be kinda like a pirate radio station.
[QUOTE=badMedia;23976450] But hopefully this will spawn a new internet that will be kinda like a pirate radio station.[/QUOTE] You mean Tor? Shit has been around for ages.
The Molotovs Get them.
Today was the day I stopped using google.
Geez, I didn't realize what the source was. Everything I have ever read on the Huffington Post was scaremongering Republican propaganda. I've read the Google post and from what I understand Google is dealing with companies to keep the rights that we currently have, not destroy them. Here is something that I am sure the HuffPo got upset about: [quote=http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-for-open-internet.html]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. [/quote] tl;dr: ISPs can offer new services with partners [b]in addition[/b] to the services they already offer. The Internet we have today is not being thrown out the window. It is just growing, as what Google puts as "a platform for innovation." Everyone needs to chill the fuck out. [editline]editline[/editline] This too: [quote]Second, we agree that in addition to these existing principles [b]there should be a new, enforceable prohibition against discriminatory practices.[/b] 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.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Zezibesh;23962674]So you have great plan to stop all this? And it doesn't involve violence or firebombing? Please share. [/QUOTE] I- Uh. No. Not really. Actually, I like that firebombing and violence idea. Yeah, I think that'll do.
God damnit... Well it was nice knowing you Internet.
:google: :argh: This is bullshit. Goddamn. Although, with all these conflicting news sources, I'm a bit confused.
[QUOTE=Splurgy_A;23967274]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: 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.[/QUOTE] Pretty much. Anyone who thinks the corporations won't monetize every single aspect of the internet providence are simply sticking their heads in the sand. Verizon is already working on prioritization of services, and has been for a while. A joint statement that can in no way be actively regulated or wielded in a court of law is quite simply, marketing bullshit and nothing more.
[QUOTE=badMedia;23976450]But hopefully this will spawn a new internet that will be kinda like a pirate radio station.[/QUOTE] see: freenet
[QUOTE=kidwithsword;23977163]Geez, I didn't realize what the source was. Everything I have ever read on the[B] Huffington Post was scaremongering Republican propaganda[/B].[/QUOTE] "Huffington Post" "Republican propaganda" [img_thumb]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/emoot/psyduck.gif[/img_thumb]
:canada: Country, don't fail me now. Even though the CRTC is practically ran by Rogers and all the other telcos, STAY WITH ME BRO!
[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 the article, and felt that the author [B]only[/B] cared about the isp. Not the consumer, who bought their computer, which for many is not much more than internet use. Fail to realize that internet users pay to get there internet/bandwidth, and that if the isps can't take the bandwidth usage then its there fault, because i know i cant get any faster rates than that is paid. Tear the shit of this if need be, I could have misread things in the article.
[QUOTE=DamagePoint;23972417]Everything in the article is in Google's blog post. Either you didn't read it or you don't want to accept that Google would ever do anything bad. Which is not the case.[/QUOTE] You're a paranoid idiot.
Google, you used to be cool. What happened to you.. Come on FCC, time to prove your not quite as bad as I think you are.
Using Bing until Google stops being such a dick.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.