| 3:26 am on Aug 13, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I came here to post a link to the EFF reaction.
They seem to agree with my view that its a mixture of good nd bad: so its a win in that Verizon agreed to the good stuff, and a loss in that Google agreed to the bad stuff - but the public can still influence the legislators too.
Americans, start writing to the FCC and your congressman etc., Europeans: Neelie Kroes already seems sympathetic, write to her and the other relevant European Commissioners (the new competition one at least).
| 6:10 am on Aug 13, 2010 (gmt 0)|
UPDATE: Facebook has taken an opposite position from Google and stated it did not support the proposal. Facebook suggests it's a move to begin chipping away at the "openness" of the internet.
~ Facebook was founded on and flourished in an open internet.
AT&T on the other hand states that the proposed plan is a "reasonable framework".
~ AT&T stands to profit from the proposed plan.
Most are avoiding the fray, for now, but some are denouncing it for what it is.
|media mogul Barry Diller called the proposal a sham |
The early reaction to the proposal is mostly negative. source (and interesting read): [finance.yahoo.com...]
|The silence of big media companies like Comcast and the News Corporation on the issue has been noticeable. Media companies‚Äô traditional business models have been about controlled pathways to the customer, and they may see benefits in restoring some of that control. |
Mr. Diller asserted that the Google-Verizon proposal ‚Äúdoesn‚Äôt preserve ‚Äėnet neutrality,‚Äô full stop, or anything like it.‚ÄĚ Asked if other media executives were staying quiet because they stand to gain from a less open Internet, he said simply, ‚ÄúYes.‚ÄĚ
| 7:06 am on Aug 13, 2010 (gmt 0)|
The only players who would gain from closing the internet would be the telcos. They would control access to customers, and take most of everyone's margin on getting to them.
| 9:53 am on Aug 13, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Google Comes Out Fighting The 'Myths' Over Net Neutrality [googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com]
|Over the past few days thereís been a lot of discussion surrounding our announcement of a policy proposal on network neutrality we put together with Verizon. On balance, we believe this proposal represents real progress on what has become a very contentious issue, and we think it could help move the network neutrality debate forward constructively. |
We donít expect everyone to agree with every aspect of our proposal, but there has been a number of inaccuracies about it, and we do want to separate fact from fiction.
| 11:40 am on Aug 13, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I thought this was an interesting piece that puts it in perspective and makes a few good points
| 12:01 pm on Aug 13, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|UPDATE: Facebook has taken an opposite position from Google and stated it did not support the proposal. Facebook suggests it's a move to begin chipping away at the "openness" of the internet. |
Probably because it would cost Facebook a lot of money.
Let's be honest, none of these companies care about the openness of the internet. They only care how it affects them financially.
| 6:44 pm on Aug 13, 2010 (gmt 0)|
@Stoutfiles, probably true, but the slip away from net neutrality is to the detriment of everyone other than telcos: the big websites may be able to lock out small competition, but only at the extremely high price of having to split their profits with the ISPs.
| 6:47 am on Aug 17, 2010 (gmt 0)|
So tell Google/Verizon to stop making plans to slap labels and fees on it, it's open already (and my pocket book isn't)
| This 38 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 38 ( 1  ) |