| 11:38 am on Aug 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I just read that they've come to an agreement, but haven't made an official announcement yet.
I think this could have a huge impact on web-based businesses.
| 1:19 pm on Aug 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
This should be moved to the Frontpage. If two-tier services become the norm it will change the whole eco-system of the WWW - be prepared to have substantially more costs if you want to run a sucessful website.
Come to think of it, it may actually be a good idea to raise the entry bar and destroy the business concepts of MFA sites along the way ;-)
NYT headline: Google and Verizon Near Deal on Pay Tiers for Web
| 1:26 pm on Aug 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Google and Verizon Near Deal on Pay Tiers for Web
|Google and Verizon, two leading players in Internet service and content, are nearing an agreement that could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content’s creators are willing to pay for the privilege. |
| 1:42 pm on Aug 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Okay, lets hear from the advocates of the Good :)
| 1:45 pm on Aug 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
// GOOD! They paid us money!
// BAD! NO MONEY! MUST PUNISH
| 2:12 pm on Aug 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Someone should call Mountainview to find out if there is actually anyone alive there. The humans may have been overpowered by the bots who appear to be running wild.
| 2:16 pm on Aug 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I'm not sure if it's OK to post this information here or not, I checked the Terms of Service and the Charter, but didn't see anything about it, but I suppose I could have missed it.
The FCC Chairman is Julius Genachowski, and you can call and leave a message at 202.418.1000 explaining how this will impact your small online business. Once again, in the interest of protecting big corporations and their profits, the small businesses and citizens are the ones who will pay the most.
I already pay for high speed Internet access at home and at work. I pay to have my site hosted online, and the faster the server, the more it costs. As far as I'm concerned, I'm already doing my part. I don't feel like I should now have to pay an ISP just so my site performs well enough that visitors don't abandon it while pages load.
Verizon and Google just want to create a new income stream, which means we'll be paying twice for what we already have.
| 2:30 pm on Aug 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
This is America. The little guy (in this case, that's us small publishers) always gets screwed. Corporate America wins again.
| 3:12 pm on Aug 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
its funny that goog is in these talks, they are the ones beating the net neut drum saying NO DON'T DO THAT
now on the other said they are in bed with ISP's saying yea lets totally do that.
| 3:30 pm on Aug 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Google boss: Chatty on net neutrality [bbc.co.uk]
|He was equally circumspect on reports that Google and Verizon have hatched a deal over net neutrality: the principle of ensuring that all web traffic is treated equally. |
|"We have been talking to Verizon for a long time about trying to get an agreement on what the definition of what 'net neutrality' is. |
"We are trying to find solutions that bridge between the hard core 'net neturality or else' view and the historical telecom view of no such agreement."
| 4:16 pm on Aug 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
They're not going to speed up sites that pay up, they're going to slow down sites that don't!
Remember that ISP's don't want to give you what they advertise.
*post interrupted by Comcast resetting my modem*
Wait, what was I going to say? I can't remember what I was thinking about five minutes ago because I was busy resetting my modem.
| 4:28 pm on Aug 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
here comes evil
| 4:33 pm on Aug 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Verizon is now stating that the story on this that appeared in a major national newspaper is "mistaken."
We'll see. I did call the FCC, and let them know my concerns. They seem to have not considered the impact to the small web-based business. If you have a site, please call and let your concerns be known! Net Neutrality is important for our sites to remain competitive.
| 4:46 pm on Aug 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
If this thing goes thru
// GOOD! We paid the money!
| 4:55 pm on Aug 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Google tweeted on this as well:
| 4:56 pm on Aug 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
This is the begining of the end of the wild west Internet. From here on in the richest will dominate and there will be little chance for the little guy to compete.
Up until now, a small company with some decent SEO could rank with the big guys. That will all change as the rush to get in on the fast lane begins.
Oh well, it was good while it lasted.
| 5:03 pm on Aug 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
It looks like the deal is that Verizon has agreed not to throttle anyone's traffic on the wired network in return for Google, but would continue to throttle on the mobile network.
Looks like the NY Times has been spun a misleading version of the story (why am I not surprised?) and Google are the good guys after all.
@AndyA, where are the small business lobbyists talking to the FCC? Government agencies only listen to big business be default - but you can do your bit to get them to listen.
| 5:14 pm on Aug 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I can see this effecting web hosting companies. Lets say a host reaches an agreement with the isp's for its ip addresses. They can then use this as a marketing tool to attract clients.
I think if this issue was to be re-written in very simple terms, and made it to the main stream press it could seriously damage Google's reputation.
The entire issue IMO revolves around the fact thats Internet service providers simply can't deliver what they offer.
| 5:28 pm on Aug 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Google has changed their tune on this rather quickly. Although I think the signs were there that their net neutrality talk was nothing more than a PR stunt over the years.
I will be contacting my representative and Senators, as well as the FCC today. If you feel this issue will impact your business, I would recommend doing the same.
| 5:51 pm on Aug 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Why would Google do this? By heading down a slippery slope where only the big guys can pay to have their sites loads quickly, all the little sites that advertise through Adwords will no longer advertise if no one can reach their sites or the sites that run their ads through Adsense. Google would be shooting itself in the foot.
| 5:54 pm on Aug 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
WOW! How fast we change Google. I never thought I was going to dislike Google so much. Read this too:
| 6:22 pm on Aug 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Eric Schmidt 2006:
"A Note to Google Users on Net Neutrality:
The Internet as we know it is facing a serious threat. There's a debate heating up in Washington, DC on something called "net neutrality" – and it's a debate that's so important Google is asking you to get involved. We're asking you to take action to protect Internet freedom.
In the next few days, the House of Representatives is going to vote on a bill that would fundamentally alter the Internet. That bill, and one that may come up for a key vote in the Senate in the next few weeks, would give the big phone and cable companies the power to pick and choose what you will be able to see and do on the Internet.
Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody – no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional – has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can't pay.
Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight. Please call your representative (202-224-3121) and let your voice be heard.
Thanks for your time, your concern and your support."
| 6:29 pm on Aug 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I can't believe you're all shocked by this, Google tried to convey the image that they care about being fair but all their actions the past few years have said anything but. Just wait till SEO results are nothing but predetermined purchased slots.
| 7:37 pm on Aug 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Verizon: New York Times' Story is Mistaken [policyblog.verizon.com]
|The NYT article regarding conversations between Google and Verizon is mistaken. It fundamentally misunderstands our purpose. As we said in our earlier FCC filing, our goal is an Internet policy framework that ensures openness and accountability, and incorporates specific FCC authority, while maintaining investment and innovation. To suggest this is a business arrangement between our companies is entirely incorrect. |
| 8:49 pm on Aug 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
This "news" was proven wrong shortly after the article was released. I'm very surprised how fast most of you sprung to hating google without even researching the topic.
| 9:04 pm on Aug 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
An naturally, its a given that The parties involved always give exactly accurate information, and are in the habit of letting webmasters and other sundry persons into their confidence
| 10:46 pm on Aug 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|where are the small business lobbyists talking to the FCC |
Ummm.... I'm a small business. I don't own any lobbyists. I can't afford them. Do you want a system in which paying lobbyists is a prerequisite for doing business?
Barriers to entry stifle innovation, even if they do screen out a lot of crap. This is a sad day for the internet.
| 11:05 pm on Aug 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|conversations between Google and Verizon is mistaken |
And it only shows, from reading posts all over the web in the past couple of days/weeks, that masses don't trust both ANYMORE and media is out there only to to create an effect of... -my youzee uyrts(Underground Klingon for: No I'zcream VI Ya)..
| 1:34 am on Aug 6, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Well, looks like a false alarm this time. Have been wondering when the web 2.0 noise will use enough bandwith to create a problem for the rest of us.
| This 49 message thread spans 2 pages: 49 (  2 ) > > |