Google-Verizon Net Neutrality Pact: 5 Red Flags

[darth los]

I'm suprised no one is really talking about this. It seems that this is the great first ammendment issue of our time. Well, if you don't know what net neutrality is read up! It really is an outrage. http://www.pcworld.com/article/20297...red_flags.html http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38627920...h_and_gadgets/

[JDFP]

Could someone explain this to me in common layman's English? I don't really get what the difference is here between now and proposed changes. Then again, I prefer books to Kindle's and talking as opposed to .TXT'ing (and I have never surfed the net on a phone). Thanks... j.p.

[MikePizzoff]

JDFP - I didn't read that article, but I gathered some information from the article I did read, so here ya go... Basically, the way the internet works right now is, anybody can create a website and personally control who they want to view it. Joe Schmoe from around the corner can create a site that ends up being a huge hit, turning him into an over-night millionaire (IE: YouTube, Facebook, etc). What Google & Verizon want to do is change that, despite them previously claiming to be all for freedom of internet. They want it to be so websites can be controlled by bigger corporations (them) sort of in the form of supply and demand. Say a website isn't getting that many hits, then there is no reason for it to be continued being updated. Or say a website is getting a ton of hits, then it can become a pay-to-view type of thing even if it were priorly free. Also, they want to change the law so if you create an awesome website and they think it's a good idea they'll have complete power to shut down your site and claim it's not "generating enough interest" then turn around and essentially create their own version of the same thing, in turn making them more money.

[slickwilly13]

I was going to send my resume to Google, but I changed my mind after reading this. I do not want to be part of any of this. Not only that, but I have to go through a number of bullshit games just to get an interview from them. It was rediculous.

[darth los]

Well, I'm glad it was informative. I always say if i can get the info. out there and enlighten atleast one person then it was worth it. But yeah, really shady deal going on here. What's baffling is that the head of the FCC should be able to lay down the law on this stuff. Why it's not happening? I'll have to go research that.

[BillyRay]

But yeah, really shady deal going on here. What's bafflinf is that the head of the FCC should be able to lay down the law on this stuff. Why it's not happening? I'll have to go research that. I think you answered your own question with "Head of the FCC". They're not in place to protect consumers from being reamed. They're in place to protect the American public from nipples!

[MikePizzoff]

Not only what Billy said, but also because the FCC does not have anything to do with the internet. However, the gov't is pushing to make that change, which I would welcome in this sense.

[darth los]

Not only what Billy said, but also because the FCC does not have anything to do with the internet. However, the gov't is pushing to make that change, which I would welcome in this sense. That's very suprising considering that's it's pretty much the main method for people to communicate, interact, get information and entertain themselves nowdays. You'd think they'd be all over it.

[BillyRay]

The FCC may have been waiting for a way for the Guv'mint to make a couple bucks off of regulating the Internet. Sad to say, but If the Corps get their way, taxing the 'Tubes (RIP Sen Stevens) will be the next step. I don't know how, but the beancounters will find a way. Of course the savings'll get passed on to us... (The Max Headroom TV series is out today. It felt relevant to mention that)

[darth los]

The FCC may have been waiting for a way for the Guv'mint to make a couple bucks off of regulating the Internet. Sad to say, but If the Corps get their way, taxing the 'Tubes (RIP Sen Stevens) will be the next step. I don't know how, but the beancounters will find a way. Of course the savings'll get passed on to us... (The Max Headroom TV series is out today. It felt relevant to mention that) That makes sense. If the gov't can feasably tax it you can your your balls that they will.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Could someone explain this to me in common layman's English? Thanks... j.p. Translated: It means we're going to get up the ass not from just one group, no... we're going to be DP'd by two of them, and still no lube.

[darth los]

Translated: It means we're going to get up the ass not from just one group, no... we're going to be DP'd by two of them, and still no lube. It seems, correction, is that it's the people who keep getting sucked dry at every opportunity while the corporations get richer and richer while providing us less jobs, cuts in service, etc. I' not so sure we need them at all. They need us the way i see it... (isn't that a great line?) While we're at it I'm not so sure we need a senate either. Thomas Jefferson didn't think we needed a senate. A bigger clusterfuck I have never seen in my life. Look and see what I mean: Senate sitting on 290 bills already passed by House; tension mounts http://thehill.com/homenews/house/83...90-house-bills Can you believe that!?! A more inefficient body there has never been. The fillibuster has to be done away with first off. it is being abused now days in ways the founding fathers never intended. Our gov't is basically at a standstill in the worst recession since the great depression basically because the senate can't get it's shit together.

[LouCipherr]

Umm, i didn't read the article (yet), but I'm confused and concerned... wasn't the original intention of "net neutraily" in it's purist definition that no ISP could provide preference to one set of bits as opposed to another and that all bits are allowed and equal regardless of content? For example: lets say I open a website about whatever (doesn't matter). Lets say that then Verizon opens up a very similar site - however, they end up greasing the palms of ISPs around the world to assure their bits are delivered faster and with more priority than my site. This would not be allowed. I thought that's how "net neutrality" was supposed to work - make sure the ISPs remain neutral in their delivering of bits. If that's the case, then WTF is going on with Verizon/Google? I think both of them are a bit too "big brother" to be the ones overseeing this shit. Don't get me wong - I DO NOT want the government handling this either, but I don't trust neither Google nor Verizon. Then again, I don't trust anybody. Just because I 'think' people are out to get me, doesn't mean they aren't, right?

[darth los]

Umm, i didn't read the article (yet), but I'm confused and concerned... wasn't the original intention of "net neutraily" in it's purist definition that no ISP could provide preference to one set of bits as opposed to another and that all bits are allowed and equal regardless of content? For example: lets say I open a website about whatever (doesn't matter). Lets say that then Verizon opens up a very similar site - however, they end up greasing the palms of ISPs around the world to assure their bits are delivered faster and with more priority than my site. This would not be allowed. I thought that's how "net neutrality" was supposed to work - make sure the ISPs remain neutral in their delivering of bits. If that's the case, then WTF is going on with Verizon/Google? I think both of them are a bit too "big brother" to be the ones overseeing this shit. Don't get me wong - I DO NOT want the government handling this either, but I don't trust neither Google nor Verizon. Then again, I don't trust anybody. Just because I 'think' people are out to get me, doesn't mean they aren't, right? We're with you brother ! But yeah, everything you said applies as well.

[BillyRay]

Found a really detailed review of the Good-Bad-Ugly on the Electronic Frontier Foundation's website: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/08...-netneutrality On Monday, Google and Verizon proposed a new legislative framework for net neutrality. Reaction to the proposal has been swift and, for the most part, highly critical. While we agree with many aspects of that criticism, we are interested in the framework's attempt to grapple with the Trojan Horse problem. The proposed solution: a narrow grant of power to the FCC to enforce neutrality within carefully specified parameters. While this solution is not without its own substantial dangers, we think it deserves to be considered further if Congress decides to legislate. Unfortunately, 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 . Quite a bit more at the link.