Not signed in (Sign In)

Web Nuggets: The Google/Verizon Deal and its implications

Bottom of Page

1 to 7 of 7

  1.  
  1.  (8699.1)
    A number of news sites have been proclaiming the End Of The Internet As We Know It following Google's negotiations with Verizon. Can someone shed some light on this? Are we really about to lose Net neutrality, or is it just going to be a matter of using another search engine apart from Google?
  2.  (8699.2)
    My question here regards net-neutrality itself. They're saying the biggest deal with the deal (heh) is that it will start a precedent for some companies having their websites move faster by paying more to certain companies. What I'm wondering is, if this becomes the norm, what does that actually mean? Do all websites continue to load just as quickly as they do now, with premium payers simply moving a split second faster? Or are non-premium paying companies going to have their website load-speed slowed to a crawl? How would that even work?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAriana
    • CommentTimeAug 6th 2010
     (8699.3)
  4.  (8699.4)
    Ariana: Yes, I read about the denials on SFGate.
    • CommentAuthorPedroM
    • CommentTimeAug 6th 2010
     (8699.5)
    More details here

    http://cyberpunkresources.blogspot.com/2010/08/google-and-verizon-vs-net-neutrality.html

    and here

    http://gizmodo.com/5605310/google-just-killed-net-neutrality

    Taken from the gizmodo article:

    "Google spokesperson Mistique Cano said in an email that "We have no announcement at this point." Which is a far cry from the outright denial they shot at the NYT, and a possible indicator that that's the real story here: that Google and Verizon have reached a deal not to selectively slow traffic over wires, but that mobile is fair game."

    "We have no announcement at this point"? - Seriously, this guy/girl just nullified everything they tried to denial - way to go!
  6.  (8699.6)
    I don't know what's more likely; the Times is wrong, or Google has decided it's okay to be evil.

    It sounds like maybe the left hand of Google isn't talking to the right hand and the NYT found some things to report on about that.

    Morals at a big company can't last forever.
    •  
      CommentAuthorInternaut
    • CommentTimeAug 6th 2010 edited
     (8699.7)
    Sounds like the backroom FCC talks fell through.

    FCC Chief of Staff Edward Lazarus called off closed-door negotiations with major ISPs and Internet companies on Thursday, pledging "to seek broad input on this vital issue." The announcement comes in the wake of news that Verizon and Google are hatching plans to abandon open Internet protections. Both the corporate deal-making and the closed-door meetings have generated widespread public outrage.

    After today’s FCC meeting, Chairman Julius Genachowski said: "Any outcome, any deal that doesn't preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet for consumers and entrepreneurs will be unacceptable."


    Link

    Also, from slashdot:
    Google and Verizon are nearing an agreement that could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content's creators are willing to pay for the privilege. Any agreement between Verizon and Google could also upend the efforts of the Federal Communications Commission to assert its authority over broadband service, which was severely restricted by a federal appeals court decision in April. People close to the negotiations who were not authorized to speak publicly about them said an agreement could be reached as soon as next week. If completed, Google, whose Android operating system powers many Verizon wireless phones, would agree not to challenge Verizon's ability to manage its broadband Internet network as it pleased.


    And, it appears Verizon is actively opposing the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, Which would write the FCC's Open Internet policy statement into the Communications Act, barring ISPs from being allowed to "block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair, or degrade" access to any lawful content from any lawful application or device.

    Verizon spent 4.5 million in opposition to this.

1 to 7 of 7

  1.