| 6:10 pm on Aug 9, 2010 (gmt 0)|
what exactly is wrong with the internet today that goog and verizon need to fix.
its been working as is for longer then these companies have exsisted.
This isn't good as both of these companies have agendas.
Remember back in the 90's when AOL was big, everyone was dialing up to AOL using AOL services. Then you had guys like us that had "internet access" our AOL friends came over and saw us dialing up online then saying....WHAT?! WHERE IS THE INTERNET NOTHING HAPPEND? Its like we had to show them what the non-AOL web was cause that is all they knew.
I have long had the feeling goog is trying to take its market share of the web and make it all goog all the time, googweb much like AOL. you have a goog phone, a goog OS computer, goog mail, goog apps, goog games, goog social, goog search its AOL of the 90s but much worse, and they won't do it by opt-in you in to a pay plan or even a subscription they'll go straight to the ISP that you pay cut a deal and goog you if you want it or not.
| 6:15 pm on Aug 9, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Google is seeking government mandate to protect its market monopoly.
Google had one thing right, that the internet is Open. It should remain free from Govt regulation of this type. Let the market figure it out.
| 6:54 pm on Aug 9, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|tired of letting 50% of their bandwidth costs go free to google |
That's a huge fallacy because the bandwidth is being paid for and used by their customers.
Likewise, Google buys and pays for it's own bandwidth as well, just like any other site on the web.
If their customers don't access Google (Youtube), they'll access something else (Hulu), that's the very nature of running an internet service whether you like it or not.
The true issue here is Google, Facebook, and others have deep pockets and the telcos and cable companies, running out of room to grow their earnings, and being pressured by customers for more speed, are looking for new ways to get new money to show Wall Street and pay for the infrastructure upgrades, even if it means extortion.
Let's examine how this would work in the real world.
City A has a huge popular shopping mall.
City B is situated between City A's shopping mall and the on/off ramps for the highway. The highway exit ramps just happen to carry hundreds of customers an hour going to City A's shopping mall.
City B demands that City A's shopping mall, which has already paid it's dues to City A, also pay City B, which technically has no domain over any business within City A, money to help improve the roads and traffic control in City B.
Otherwise, City B has threatened to deliberately create massive traffic jams at the highway on/off ramps to block those thousands of customers from getting easy access to the shopping mall.
This actually happens in the real world, plus or minus threats, where big businesses (Walmart, casinos, movie complexes) that cause extra traffic have to pay extra to help build and maintain the infrastructure to support that traffic, including but not limited to new roads, road upgrades, traffic signals and parking structures.
That's what Google is attempting to avoid because they aren't just being hit by "City B", there's hundreds of service providers out there looking for someone to share their expenses.
In the real B&M world, they would probably have no choice but to pay up, but they would also only have to pay once, not hundreds or thousands of times for the same access and to pay continually, month after month, not a single one-time payment.
All I know is the minute Google has to pay for priority, the rest of us paying can't be far behind.
| 7:02 pm on Aug 9, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Google HAS to keep the internet open, it makes its money by using the information of others. If the internet was little closed off worlds (Apple's app market) then Google would be screwed.
While they preach for an open internet, they're sneaking in little beneficial details like paid prioritization which is NOT needed and in no way fair to small businesses.
| 8:05 pm on Aug 9, 2010 (gmt 0)|
If a site is more popular than another it doesn't cost an Internet Service Provider anymore if a user downloads 50mb from that popular site or 50mb from a site no one goes to.... and yet the Internet Service Provider wants to charge more for the privilege of downloading 50mb at a popular site.
If no one can regulate how Internet Service Providers charge for access to the Internet then what is stopping them from charging you $0.05 a MB when going to a site you've never heard of and $0.10 a MB when going to a popular website when it makes no difference to them what sites you use your MBs on.
If I have a contract for 250MB a month of data transfer from Comcast then in what alternate dimension does it cost them more if I use it up on Youtube or on some site you have never heard of? Either way I am allowed 250MB?
It is false to claim that if all Comcast users went to Youtube at the same time that it would be any different from bandwidth point of view to Comcasts if each customer went to a unique website that required the same data transfer as Youtube.
It makes no difference to Comcast how someone uses their 250MB a month and if they use their 250MB and it is too much resources for Comcast to accommodate then they are at fault, not popular websites.
How can anyone justify charging more to go to a 50k page that is popular than a 50k page that isn't popular?
I would love to hear justification for such an action without imagining clogged up tubes or roads. Lets discuss the actual technology, not how it would work if we had to travel a physical road to arrive at a website. We don't.
[edited by: Demaestro at 8:15 pm (utc) on Aug 9, 2010]
| 8:14 pm on Aug 9, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|If no one can regulate how Internet Service Providers charge for access to the Internet then what is stopping them from charging you $0.05 a MB when going to a site you've never heard of and $0.10 a MB when going to a popular website when it makes no difference to them what sites you use your MBs on. |
Kinda like AT&T charging 20 bucks/month for tethering, why should it matter how you use your data? Because even though the plan gives you X data, they don't want you to reach the limits of it. They know that tethering will have users using a lot of data so they charge more for it. They're taking this idea to the web knowing that few sites push as much data as YouTube on a mobile device. It's still insane though.
| 8:18 pm on Aug 9, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Kinda like AT&T charging 20 bucks/month for tethering, why should it matter how you use your data? |
Exactly like that, I'm surprised I didn't make that connection. Did you know that the USA is the only place this is/was true..... now that jailbreaking is legal people can tether on At&T with ease. Thankfully.
| 9:11 pm on Aug 9, 2010 (gmt 0)|
As far as I can see this is a mixture of good and bad.
The good news: Google has got a telco to endorse the basic principles of network neutrality:
|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.
The bad news: Google has,in return, agreed to endorse Verizons idea that wireless should be exempt from this:
|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 |
| 9:13 pm on Aug 9, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|If I have a contract for 250MB a month of data transfer from Comcast then in what alternate dimension does it cost them more if I use it up on Youtube or on some site you have never heard of? Either way I am allowed 250MB? |
I think in this case depending how the ISP is connected via peering contracts. Some peering connections might be cheaper then others, and if it went though the more expensive peer it would cost the isp more. just a thought.
| 9:26 pm on Aug 9, 2010 (gmt 0)|
>the bandwidth is being paid for and used by their customers.
The bandwidth is being paid for by customers in aggregate - not individual users. If the makeup of that aggregate bandwidth changes (such as moving from text to youtube video) then they should pay more. That aggregate cost has to increase or the offending party (youtube), needs to pay more.
I say, charge the YouTube bandwidth hordes - not me.
All this is going to do is get the cable companies to move to 'pay for what you eat' models of payment for us.
| 9:33 pm on Aug 9, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|I say, charge the YouTube bandwidth hordes - not me |
Well sorry, but most of the US cell companies are dropping the all-you-can-eat data plans thanks to all the video and music streamers out there so we'll all have to subsidize their habits...
... assuming I ever let my unlimited data plan lapse :)
| 10:16 pm on Aug 9, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Some peering connections might be cheaper then others, and if it went though the more expensive peer it would cost the isp more. |
I have never heard that claim from an ISP. My understanding is that it doesn't work that way but I could be wrong.
|I say, charge the YouTube bandwidth hordes - not me. |
Sure but charge them based on what they use not based on where they use it. That is the key distinction here.
250MB should cost me the same no matter where/how I use it.
It can't be fair or right that if we both use 250MB/month except I use mine on Youtube and you use yours transferring files using FTP that you pay less and I pay more becuase I was on Youtube. It is insane to suggest otherwise.
Does anyone on here really feel that someone who transfers 250MB a month using FTP should pay less than someone who transfers 250MB a month on Youtube?
| 1:31 am on Aug 10, 2010 (gmt 0)|
And this folks is how freedom is lost.
Don't believe a word of the "press release", it's propaganda.
|It is imperative that we find ways to protect the future openness of the Internet and encourage the rapid deployment of broadband. |
Simple solution, tell Google and Verizon they have no right to influence government in the name of openness while the proposal itself slaps restrictions and fees on it. Who does Google think they are making decisions for the planet anyway? I don't remember anyone appointing them as internet saviors and they sure as heck don't own any of what they aim to control.
The fact that Google and Verizon can't profit from the net by selling "use packages" doesn't mean its broken. If businesses can't be profitable without charging more they can go ahead and charge more, people should be free to seek cheaper alternatives and this "proposal" ensures there are none.
Also, the very second your internet activity starts to get measured for bandwidth Google/Verizon will have a right to record where you've been. They do it anyway, the proposal insures they have a right to continue doing it.
read the actual proposed legislative framework here - [scribd.com...]
This is a pure baby steps move to get the ball rolling until we pay for internet like we do cable, pre-determined basic and much more expensive advanced packages we are NOT free to change. The new costs will of course need to be shared by webmasters.
There is nothing at issue beyond major companies looking to profit more from a system they HATE for being so open.
The proposal is exceedingly vague too - from the actual framework -
|A provider that offers a broadband Internet access service complying with the above principles could offer any other additional or differentiated services. |
But one thing is clear the basic is being outlined and the extra will of course cost more. vultures are looking to profit from our current freedoms all while pretending to be the nice guys. just say no.
Who would run the show under this proposal?
|Regulatory Authority: The FCC would have exclusive authority to oversee broadband Internet access service, but would not have any authority over Internet software applications, content or services. Regulatory authorities would not be permitted to regulate broadband Internet access service. |
Two tiers, the FCC policing internet service providers and an unnamed "regulatory authority" policing website content. Each not allowed to step on the toes of the other thus eliminating an appeal process. Move over internet CZAR.
The internet is CURRENTLY open and free, enjoy it while it lasts. Google/Verizon efforts bring haste to the end of those freedoms.
[edited by: Sgt_Kickaxe at 1:56 am (utc) on Aug 10, 2010]
| 1:56 am on Aug 10, 2010 (gmt 0)|
| 2:04 am on Aug 10, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Don't do evil on your xbox live account, your internet provider will make using it a premium feature for sure.
Actually - go rent/download the movie 2012 from netflix while you still can without a price hike, 2012 is almost here and it may be an accurate movie afterall :-)
| 2:42 am on Aug 10, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Don't believe a word of the "press release", it's propaganda. |
ITA...this is a very agressive push by google to shepherd the masses towards the direction Google wants them to go--and Google is 99.9% of the time way more subtle and patient. These are dangerous times IMO, we're on the brink of something ba-aaa-ad.
| 6:20 am on Aug 10, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Did you just call me a sheep Tallon? lol.
Google has hearded us in many ways already but we choose to be hearded. We're no asking for this as users. I agree though, trying to goad government into action while aligning government with their own ideas and making it seem like they are really doing users a favor is quite... ambitious.
| 8:53 am on Aug 10, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Lots of allegations of some sort of evil plot here, but when I actually read the statement it comes to "Google wants net neutrality, Verizon does not, this is a compromise we could both live with."
|All this is going to do is get the cable companies to move to 'pay for what you eat' models of payment for us. |
That is a good thing. It has to be paid for by someone, and getting users to pay directly is the best way to ensure a competitive market for it, transparent to users, rather than a set of deals between big players.
|an unnamed "regulatory authority" policing website content |
Where does it say that? It says that the FCC should not regulate content or software - not that someone else should.
The current restrictions on content are criminal law (for certain content) and copyright law (for everything else), and this does not suggest adding to those.
|Does anyone on here really feel that someone who transfers 250MB a month using FTP should pay less than someone who transfers 250MB a month on Youtube? |
Of course they do. The do not want to admit it, but a lot of this comes to "get someone else to pay, not me". Of course, they forget that he who pays the piper calls the tune, and if the big sites pay, they WILL get to rig the network in their favour.
Until recently only a few users really made use of uncapped broadband, so the telcos were willing to take the hit in order to advertise unlimited services. As more and more people actually make use of it, the heavy users can no longer be subsidised, so have to pay their way. What people here want is for their heavy use to be subsidise, and other heavy users to pay.
Incidentally, I assume you mean GB, not MB: it takes almost 250MB just to install Lyx.
| 11:08 am on Aug 10, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|... assuming I ever let my unlimited data plan lapse :) |
You're referring to AT&T's unlimited plan? I have that as well, and I know that won't be there forever. In the contract they have rules that let them change the rules of the contract whenever they see fit. When they change the rules they let you out for free, but considering where the rest of the carriers are going with data you'd just be getting more of the same by switching.
Sprint will probably keep the unlimited bandwagon going as long as they can since they're in third place. The day will come though when they'll switch to limited plans.
| 1:20 pm on Aug 10, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Anyone opposing the "Open Internet" these two companies are working to provide us are obviously clinging to convoluted conspiracy theories.
| 2:28 pm on Aug 10, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Net Neutrality Advocates Blast Google, Verizon Plan
|Having Verizon and Google make rules about the Web is comparable to having Ford or GM makes rules about auto safety. Public Knowledge has issued a petition on its site to the FCC calling it to "take action now to protect innovation, competition and American broadband consumers" and not allow broadband companies to make rules of their own. |
But cut through the platitudes the two companies (Googizon, anyone?) offered on today's press call, and you'll find this deal is even worse than advertised.
The proposal is one massive loophole that sets the stage for the corporate takeover of the Internet.
Real Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers can't discriminate between different kinds of online content and applications. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies. It's what makes sure the next Google, out there in a garage somewhere, has just as good a chance as any giant corporate behemoth to find its audience and thrive online.
What Google and Verizon are proposing is fake Net Neutrality. You can read their framework for yourself here or go here to see Google twisting itself in knots about this suddenly "thorny issue." But here are the basics of what the two companies are proposing:
| 5:50 pm on Aug 10, 2010 (gmt 0)|
INteresting - the day after this announcement, timewarner decides that if you ONLY use their internet access, instead of a bundle, they are going t charge you more. I am going right now to cancel my other services with TW and move all my telecom to SKYPE - and my internet fax service. I am so tired of being nickel and dimed by what I consdier a service as essential as electricity or water. Why are these commoditites to be sold. PUBLIC transportation. PUBLIC Utilities (haha). SHould be PUBLIC internet. In my dreams.
* herded, not hearded, though they ARE related, in this case, we are not HEARD but HERDED.
| 7:07 pm on Aug 10, 2010 (gmt 0)|
The Huff Post piece hugely exaggerates. For example:
|The deal would let ISPs like Verizon -- instead of Internet users like you -- decide which applications deserve the best quality of service. |
Whereas the proposal says:
|Non-Discrimination Requirement: In providing broadband Internet access service, a provider would be prohibited from engaging in undue discrimination against any lawful Internet content,application, or service in a manner that causes meaningful harm to competition or to users. Prioritization of Internet traffic would be presumed inconsistent with the non-discrimination standard, but the presumption could be rebutted. |
The wireless exemption is bad, but as the OP-Ed by the two CEOs in today's Washington points out, some 4G networks are required to be open anyway (I.e. some wireless networks will not be network neutral, some will be). The exemption is also supposed to be reviewed and eventually withdrawn.
The other thing that everyone who criticises this deal is missing, is that right now ISPs can do whatever they want, block what they want, prioritise what they want.
| 2:16 am on Aug 11, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Did you just call me a sheep Tallon? lol. |
I didn't, really! It was my way (poorly done obviously) of expressing how we're being corralled (by both sides of the issue). I'm pretty much on the same page as you are, I think. I'm also pretty aware that I have to question everything, from both sides of this, because the propaganda is thick and murky all around this issue.
Narratives promoted so far:
---Net neutrality must be in place to save the people from the evil, greedy corporations so the little guy webmaster and innovators can prevail! And to ensure we'll all have equal access to whatever we want on the internet using whatever tool of choice (including that little guy's website).
Some pretty heavy players in politics and business are very hungry to see this implemented...most (all?) of which I wouldn't trust with a nickel never mind something as important as a free internet.
The other narrative:
---Net neutrality must not ever happen because the FCC/U.S. government will have their fingers all over content management (like they currently do with tv/movie/radio media)...which could/will eventually mean censorship over content, content access (will local government be able to force ISPs to block access to gambling sites (for example) if gambling is illegal in that state) and maybe some weird stunts like the Fairness Doctrine. Stuff like that.
Net neutrality = gov't control
No net neutrality = big evil business control
Those are the only two options (apparently)
What the problem really is: Neither government nor business has control over the internet as it is today and how it's evolving and what its users are creating and how they're using it (because the user is currently in charge). Net neutrality is the strawman being used to manipulate the situation into something more controlled/manageable for the powers that be (because otherwise the market would simply function as all other markets do--the consumer pays for what he consumes based on his amount of consumption--pretty simple and drama free and the net continues untouched by gov't control or big business manipulations).
Net neutrality vs. no net neutrality--IMO neither is a win for the average citizen.
Sigh. It would be so much easier on me if they used more hollywood A-list actors to push for net neutrality instead of the C- & D-list, maybe I'd fall in step easier ;).
Tinfoil hat or not, I really do think we're teetering over a point of no return, but it's not too late (just yet). I think that's why Google's made this move, to drop kick us all over the edge in a wild panic.
| 6:53 am on Aug 11, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Anyone opposing the "Open Internet" these two companies are working to provide us are obviously clinging to convoluted conspiracy theories. |
Really? I guess you missed the part about the internet being open and free already. These two publicly traded companies are looking out for their bottom line, they're not trying to provide us with something we already have, lol. These two companies want more money from the net.
| 9:03 am on Aug 11, 2010 (gmt 0)|
The point is that the telcos want to extract money from owning their customers. They also want to sell unlimited packages for just the cheaper to provide services: It has happened in other countries, but has been held back in the US by the threat of FCC regulation.
This article has a reference to a French service that completely blocked P2P and VOIP: [iptegrity.com ]
Here is an ad from Australian ISP Optus offering unlimited Facebook: [personal.optus.com.au ] I have also seen a similar ad in Sri Lanka.
Optus were/are also blocking the Android store until they got a cut:
Yes, as Tallon says, no one really controlled the internet. The telcos want to change that: what is going to stop them other than regulation?
| 5:07 pm on Aug 11, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Eff Weights in:
|the same document that proposed this intriguing idea also included some really terrible ideas. It carves out exemptions from neutrality requirements for so-called "unlawful" content, for wireless services, and for very vaguely-defined "additional online services." The definition of "reasonable network management" is also problematically vague. As many, many, many have already pointed out, these exemptions threaten to completely undermine the stated goal of neutrality. |
| 6:10 pm on Aug 11, 2010 (gmt 0)|
This would be similar to TV networks vs. TV providers, wouldn't it? Threats of blackouts because X network can't agree on what to pay X provider.
| 8:39 pm on Aug 11, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Here's a rather strong analysis from the Technical Liberation Front. Here's the opening shot:
|The proposal has generated howls of anguish from the usual suspects... But after going through the framework and comparing it more-or-less line for line with what the FCC proposed back in October, I found there were very few significant differences. |
Surprisingly, much of the outrage being unleashed against the framework relates to provisions and features that are identical to the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which of course many of those yelling the loudest ardently support.
| This 38 message thread spans 2 pages: 38 (  2 ) > > |