Google sells out
- Started
- Last post
- 48 Responses
- ukit0
OK, so this is a bit old but worth reading the analysis here
http://arstechnica.com/telecom/g…
It seems like this really will end the concept of net neutrality for good. Thanks for nothing Google, and fuck you very much. I wonder what changed, since they seemed like such strong supporters just a couple years ago.
- ukit0
Yeah it seems like a Bill Clinton style "did not";D
- instrmntl0
Google said they didn't reach an agreement with Verizon. Cleverly worded. Sounds like they were still vying for subscription based tiers, they just simply didn't reach an agreement on the best solution.
- kpl0
a new day brings more sunshine:
"Specifically, Google and Verizon's agreement could prevent Verizon from offering some prioritization to the biggest bidders who want better delivery of content on its DSL and fiber networks, according to the sources. But that wouldn’t apply to mobile phones,"
http://voices.washingtonpost.com…
So, is hypocrisy considered evil? Just wondering.
- kpl0
@DrBombay: Here's the full text of WSJ's article. If you search for it via google, WSJ doesn't put up a pay wall. Fucking Rupert Murdoch.
SAN FRANCISCO (Dow Jones)--Google Inc. (GOOG) on Thursday strongly denied a report that said the search giant was close to an agreement with Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ) that would allow the carrier to speed up the delivery of online content to Internet users if content creators paid for the privilege.
The purported agreement, reported by the New York Times, would severely undercut the Internet tenet known as net neutrality, in which no form of content is favored over another. The Times suggested an agreement between Google and Verizon could lead to a new tiered system in which consumers pay higher costs for premium levels of service.
"We remain as committed as we always have been to an open Internet," said Google spokesperson Mistique Cano. "The New York Times is quite simply wrong. We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google or YouTube traffic."
A New York Times spokesman declined to comment.
Google did not take issue with a Wall Street Journal story saying the two companies may soon announce an agreement they hope could be used as a model for legislation aimed at preventing telephone or cable companies from delaying or blocking Internet traffic.
Broadband providers say they need to be able to manage their networks so that all customers get the best possible experience, which might involve slowing some traffic, such as email, so other more timely traffic, such as phone calls, can get through.
Internet companies, on the other hand, have long opposed the idea of prioritized traffic because it could lead to additional costs, particularly for Web sites like Google's YouTube that generate huge amounts of Internet traffic.
Shares in Google were up 30 cents at $506.62.
-By Scott Morrison; Dow Jones Newswires; 415-765-6118;
- lukus_W0
Verizon wants money from Google. Google wants something in return.
- kpl0
^
"Google did not take issue with a Wall Street Journal story saying the two companies may soon announce an agreement they hope could be used as a model for legislation aimed at preventing telephone or cable companies from delaying or blocking Internet traffic."
- Dodecahedron0
so who's making stories up and why?
- Dodecahedron0
so who's making stories up and why?
- DrBombay0
Here is a bit more on what acescence is talking about.
http://mashable.com/2010/08/05/g…Also, with google's advertising reach spanning the entire internet, what advantage would they have by having one internet property being faster than anything else?
- They could make it impossible for a competitor to sprout up to something like YouTubeukit
- I don't think this is what this is about.DrBombay
- No, that's exactly what people are concerned about with this. The big corps pay for delivering their content faster, leading to a technological advantage.ukit
- end of level playing field on the web.ukit
- No, I understand it but I don't see it being in google's interest to make agreements like this.DrBombay
- The more people use the internet, the more money google makes. stifling it isn't aligned with that.DrBombay
- Google has a "whole internet" strategy. Stifling certain elements doesn't make much sense.DrBombay
- It's a fair point. Although there's no doubt other companies would be strongly in favor of such a thing.ukit
- ukit0
It's worth asking whether Google has become too powerful. We all use them because we just assume it's the best but how good will the web be if it's main functionality (search) is only dominated by one company?
- acescence0
just so we're all clear as mtgentry mentioned above the story is bs according to google so carry on nothing to see here.
@NYTimes is wrong. We've not had any convos with VZN about paying for carriage of our traffic. We remain committed to an open internet.
- Samush0
i have come to the conclusion that the internet is evil all together.
it's a shame really, i used to like the web, then it became all mainstream and corporate- oh no wait it's always been like that, it's only now we're seeing the worst of it with BS like this.
- instrmntl0
I think I'm going to delete Chrome. Fuck them.
- instrmntl0
Google has been evil for quite some time now. It definitely in character.
- ItTango0
@kingkong
Then charge me for the content I download, charge me for my consumption of information as packaged in certain forms, etc. The point is it is then my choice as to whether I will pay... or not. In general, I think the prices for some things are not high enough.Net Neutrality is only about loot on the surface. What's really happening is all about the ability to control what gets from here to there.
- kingkong0
we've had a decade of free music, free information, free film, free communication, free software, free everything.
Now all that free stuff has embedded as habit, someone has to try to make is work economically otherwise it disappears.
- yeah b/c no one makes money on the internet!plash
- What was google's market cap again?TheBlueOne