Google sells out
- Started
- Last post
- 48 Responses
- kpl
"The agreement could eventually lead to higher charges for Internet users.
"Such an agreement could overthrow a once-sacred tenet of Internet policy known as net neutrality, in which no form of content is favored over another. In its place, consumers could soon see a new, tiered system, which, like cable television, imposes higher costs for premium levels of service."
- TheBlueOne0
So, they do do evil, huh?
- TheBlueOne0
This upsets me greatly, but it's not like we couldn't see this coming.
- exactly - they are not a charity after-allDoktorDavid
- "After all gentlemen ...we're not communists.." http://www.austinart…Mimio
- benfal990
- it will come,
hopefully by then I'll be living in my cabin in the woodsgeorgesIII - i want a cabin toobenfal99
- back off benfal, its mine and georges love cabin!Hombre_Lobo
- so no one bothers you 2 when you're on the qube?whereRI
- i know im thinking about moving to tenabe and practice martial arts for the rest of my life74LEO
- Couldn't have said it better georgesIII. Don't worry I'll get my own cabin, and it will be glorious.bjm
- it will come,
- greatdepth0
i have been using Bing and Windows and Office since the day I heard Gates gave to charity anyone using Mac Google anything else is a cunt
- ahahahahhahageorgesIII
- Bit of a pathetic reason to use something. I mean he has more money than he can ever spendPIZZA
- thats the reason i run windows over mac, plus win 7 and office is better but still i keep his charity in mindgreatdepth
- How dare you call my Grandma a cunt!aanderton
- Bill Gates most likely gives to charity to get more of a tax break, If he didn't give they would probably take.syst_m
- georgesIII0
FFS, repeat after me,
Corporations are NOT you friends,
Corporations are NOT you friends,
Corporations are NOT you friends,
Corporations are NOT you friends,
- whatsup0
The charges could be paid by companies, like YouTube, owned by Google, for example, to Verizon, one of the nation’s leading Internet service providers, to ensure that its content received priority as it made its way to consumers.
- TheBlueOne0
So what about the websites I manage? Do I have to pay up so that people can read them at a normal rate?
And this is how freedom dies...
- ItTango0
This is actually quite a shitty deal. US customers are already forced to plod along at dismal speeds for way too much loot. If faster speeds exist, then all should have it.
The flip side is if the plan is to restrict the speed of traffic to sites that can't or simply won't pay. This is treading on free speech and freedom of expression... a new brand of censorship.
The internetz have become, more or less, ubiquitous. The ability to exert this type of control over such a thing is just fucking dangerous.
The FCC is a joke in your town!
- greatdepth0
the world will work like this in the future like a computer you will be able to delete people from your list and you will be able to create and keep your creations and you will have enternal life
it will be like the internet like messenger
- lukus_W0
I think this _might_ not be as dire as it seems.
There's been an argument for a while, that companies which use a huge amount of bandwidth should start paying for it. Since IPTV has become popular, the costs associated with being an ISP have increased. While in the old days, transmission cost a TV company money (because it had to be broadcast) - these days a large amount of the cost is shouldered by the intermediate ISP networks.
So, a lot of ISPs have been suggesting that the companies which consume these large continuous blocks of bandwidth, should start paying. For example the BBC has previously been asked to pay ISPs a section of the license fee to help them cope with the demand for iPlayer.
I suppose, if a deal is to be reached, the content creators need to be offered something extra in return for footing the bill. Perhaps this is why 'faster access' is on the table.
I'm not certain how this would lead to increased costs for the end user - because it's the ISPs that are gaining profit. It's a B2B transaction. Perhaps the content creators might want to pass of their costs via service charges - but until the web moves to a paid-for subscription model (as the norm), I can't see this happening for a while.
Anyway, this is what I reckon the base of the argument is.
- ItTango0
@lukus_W
The minute a company dropping a bundle of cash for preferential bandwidth is faced with competition from a company paying little or nothing... see how that plays out.But I hope you're right.
- randommail0
It would be a beautiful thing to see the internets completely fail.
Just image. We would all wake the fock up and realize the internet and the past decade of nothingness went hand-in-hand.
- BattleAxe0
Remember Wave
- ItTango0
@randommail
As the internet has no predefined set of goals and performs no act in and of itself, it cannot fail. It is simply a communication medium... not unlike TV, radio, telephones or letter writing.As for your past decade of nothingness, I'm sorry to hear about your vapid and pedestrian life.
I guess what I'm asking is: What the **** is your point?
- scrap_paper0
I hope no one is really surprised by this.
Yay capitalism.