Verizon & Google Enter Reported Deal for Tiered Internet Use

Verizon and Google Enter Reported Deal for Tiered Internet Use

  Quote

The internet and telecom giants Verizon and Google have reportedly reached an agreement to impose a tiered system for accessing the internet. The deal would enable Verizon to charge for quicker access to online content over wireless devices, a violation of the concept of net neutrality that calls for equal access to all services. The deal comes amidst closed-door meetings between the Federal Communications Commission and major telecom giants on crafting new regulations.

Your thoughts?

Either create real free markets or let the government run them. Telecommunication companies have too much power, which is happening on a lot of technology markets.

There's gonna be a way to bypass this shit. No worries.

Traffic shaping is not easy to avoid. My torrent traffic gets throttled, the only thing I can do is hire a VPS/proxy/seedbox.

We should be worried, no one else is.

Should we all just start using Bing! then?

Claim has already been denied by both Google and Verizon.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/verizon-statement-on-new-york-times-article-100048489.html

democracynow used to be worthwhile, but it turned into a big old fashioned circle jerk where dissenting ideas were quickly squashed.

  On 8/6/2010 at 8:17 PM, chassis said:

Should we all just start using Bing! then?

anything not to feed the google juggernaut.

I know a lot of people think tiered service is the future, and indeed most of the telecommunication and folks in the entertainment industry were and still are leering in this direction, but if the last decade of growth shows anything its that consumers want and demand unlimited bandwidth and will never be satisfied with a tiered system of content delivery. Further more, they will go to great lengths to bypass any limits placed on them in this fashion. A decade ago people thought we'd be paying by the MB forever but since then we've seen just about everyone fall in line and offer flat rate bandwidth. A tiered system also opens the door for competition on a number of levels, while the mantra in telecommunications these days is consolidation and appropriating everything into one functional super-product. Its a slow march towards Taco Bell.

so, any of you fucks who jumped the gun want to apologize and take it back for not getting confirmation before posting drivel and incorrect stories?

...and then freaking out about it live on the internets for all to see when the original post in this topic isnt even the real case?

nice, i just signed up for Verizon, and i love Google as well.. patiently waiting for their country on Mars.

  On 8/6/2010 at 8:28 PM, chenGOD said:

Claim has already been denied by both Google and Verizon.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/verizon-statement-on-new-york-times-article-100048489.html

 

democracynow used to be worthwhile, but it turned into a big old fashioned circle jerk where dissenting ideas were quickly squashed.

chenGOD brings the science.

  On 8/6/2010 at 7:52 PM, the anonymous forumite said:

There's gonna be a way to bypass this shit. No worries.

yeah man but they'll hack us when we VR...

A few media outlets say they are. The companies say they aren't.

Would the reporting outlets jump the gun in reporting the story? Possibly. But why would the New York Times, The Washington Post, and Democracy Now all be following the same story? These are all major papers or shows that are sure to check their sources and their facts before printing such a large story. The fact that Google and Verizon deny the charge makes the whole matter that much cloudier, but the fact that these three not-insignifciant sources are confident enough to report on it makes me sit up and pay attention. Clearly there is incredible significance to such a move by Google and I would rather be somewhat vigilant about the matter rather than take the accused company's word for it and relax.

  On 8/7/2010 at 3:52 AM, Wall Bird said:

A few media outlets say they are. The companies say they aren't.

 

Would the reporting outlets jump the gun in reporting the story? Possibly. But why would the New York Times, The Washington Post, and Democracy Now all be following the same story? These are all major papers or shows that are sure to check their sources and their facts before printing such a large story. The fact that Google and Verizon deny the charge makes the whole matter that much cloudier, but the fact that these three not-insignifciant sources are confident enough to report on it makes me sit up and pay attention. Clearly there is incredible significance to such a move by Google and I would rather be somewhat vigilant about the matter rather than take the accused company's word for it and relax.

well it's a small world. Only takes one person to tell all 3 of them. Not saying there's nothing in it of course....

  On 8/7/2010 at 1:42 AM, Drahken said:

I know a lot of people corporate hacks think tiered service is the future, and indeed most of the telecommunication and folks in the entertainment industry were and still are leering in this direction, but if the last decade of growth shows anything its that consumers want and demand unlimited bandwidth and will never be satisfied with a tiered system of content delivery. Further more, they will go to great lengths to bypass any limits placed on them in this fashion. A decade ago people thought we'd be paying by the MB forever but since then we've seen just about everyone fall in line and offer flat rate bandwidth. A tiered system also opens the door for competition on a number of levels, while the mantra in telecommunications these days is consolidation and appropriating everything into one functional super-product. Its a slow march towards Taco Bell.

Fixed that for you...

  On 8/7/2010 at 3:52 AM, Wall Bird said:

A few media outlets say they are. The companies say they aren't.

 

Would the reporting outlets jump the gun in reporting the story? Possibly. But why would the New York Times, The Washington Post, and Democracy Now all be following the same story? These are all major papers or shows that are sure to check their sources and their facts before printing such a large story. The fact that Google and Verizon deny the charge makes the whole matter that much cloudier, but the fact that these three not-insignifciant sources are confident enough to report on it makes me sit up and pay attention. Clearly there is incredible significance to such a move by Google and I would rather be somewhat vigilant about the matter rather than take the accused company's word for it and relax.

two words: echo chamber

Or to put it another way - reporters are lazy and don't bother checking facts. When one source publishes, all too often other sources follow suit. The band Negativland did an interesting social experiment, as described here:

  Quote

The band Negativland is (according to Time Magazine) "better known for media pranks than records". The band, as an excuse for cancelling an upcoming tour, issued a press release claiming that a teenager who had committed a multiple ax murder did so after arguing with his parents over the meaning of its song, Christianity Is Stupid. The story was picked up and reprinted as true by mass media, and the band wrote later songs about having perpetrated the hoax

Also, I'm sorry, but Democracy Now is not a significant source. And the idea that the NYT and Washington Post diligently check all their sources for stories is laughable. Please see Judith Miller as a prime example.

  On 8/7/2010 at 3:52 AM, Wall Bird said:

A few media outlets say they are. The companies say they aren't.

 

Would the reporting outlets jump the gun in reporting the story? Possibly. But why would the New York Times, The Washington Post, and Democracy Now all be following the same story? These are all major papers or shows that are sure to check their sources and their facts before printing such a large story. The fact that Google and Verizon deny the charge makes the whole matter that much cloudier, but the fact that these three not-insignifciant sources are confident enough to report on it makes me sit up and pay attention. Clearly there is incredible significance to such a move by Google and I would rather be somewhat vigilant about the matter rather than take the accused company's word for it and relax.

two words: digital drugs

fixd

I don't think google would do something like this, in fact, i believe their move to become ISP is in part motivated to fight this kind of shit.

From the quotes I've read, it seems like Eric Schmidt wants to give telecommunication companies the right to prioritise based on traffic type but not based on origin. I'd probably settle for that.

Unless media distribution starts to mirror company distribution. I.e. two companies competing against each other, but using different media, because then the telecommunication company's bias will de facto aide one of these companies.

Not sure if that's realistic though. Perhaps if one company starts to distribute video via bittorrent traffic and another via usual http data.

Comment and speculation from Cringley at New York Times (Cringley is relevant, not just an utter hack)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/opinion/08cringeley.html?_r=1

relevant quote for the tl;dr crowd:

  Quote

With servers so close to users, Google could not only send its data faster but also avoid sending it over the Internet backbone that connects service providers and for which they all pay. This would save space for other traffic — and money for both Verizon and Google, as their backbone bills decline (wishful thinking, but theoretically possible). Net neutrality would be not only intact, but enhanced.

Even if the system was tiered or whatnot I would not care because I would be on fucking top, as usual.

Even if the system was tiered or whatnot I would not care because I would be on fucking top, as usual.

  On 8/6/2010 at 8:28 PM, chenGOD said:

democracynow used to be worthwhile, but it turned into a big old fashioned circle jerk where dissenting ideas were quickly squashed.

i think thats more than a little unfair, they regularly have 2 people on arguing the opposite opinion. Also they have been one of the only organizations reporting on things like Blackwater's insane abuses having people like Jeremy Schahill and Gleen Greenwald (2 of the only true investigative reporters left in this country) on pretty regularly. Obviously they are liberal leaning, but im curious what 'dissenting ideas' are you talking about that been quickly squashed?

you also seem a little hasty to dismiss the possibility of this accusation. I'm all for 'debunking' false news stories but there does seem to be some truth in the original report.

I guess I'm one of the paranoid who find Google and places like Facebook kind of creepy, so you can write my opinion off as well

lol sorry got democracynow mixed up with another place. democracynow is actually a decent place.

Google doesn't give two shits about you. You are not their customer, and you never will be. same with facebook now.

facebook is easy to avoid - just don't use it. Google - no one is forcing you to use their services.

The reason I'm always leery of people reporting tech news (well news in general) is because of two things: a) generally speaking, most reporters know fuck all about tech and get things horrendously wrong and don't care because b) alarmist news gets eyeballs to the page.

what the fuck is this bullshit

i read all that then the joint statement of principles and see none of that.

  Quote

Consumer Protections:

A broadband Internet access service provider would be prohibited from preventing users of its broadband Internet access service from--

(1) sending and receiving lawful content of their choice;

(2) running lawful applications and using lawful services of their choice; and

(3) connecting their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network or

service, facilitate theft of service, or harm other users of the service.

 

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.

 

Transparency: Providers of broadband Internet access service would be required todisclose accurate and relevant information in plain language about the characteristics and capabilities of their offerings, their broadband network management, and other practices necessary for consumers and other users to make informed choices.

 

Network Management: Broadband Internet access service providers are permitted to engage in reasonable network management.Reasonable network management includes any technically

sound practice: to reduce or mitigate the effects of congestion on its network; to ensure network

security or integrity; to address traffic that is unwanted by or harmful to users, the provider’s

network, or the Internet; to ensure service quality to a subscriber; to provide services or

capabilities consistent with a consumer’s choices; that is consistent with the technical

requirements, standards, or best practices adopted by an independent, widely-recognized Internet

community governance initiative or standard-setting organization; to prioritize general classes or

types of Internet traffic, based on latency; or otherwise to manage the daily operation of its

network.

 

(comment on the above: it's not like they don't already do this)

 

Additional Online Services: A provider that offers a broadband Internet access service complying with the above principles could offer any other additional or differentiated services.

Such other services would have to be distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband

Internet access service, but could make use of or access Internet content, applications or services

and could include traffic prioritization.The FCC would publish an annual report on the effect of these additional services, and immediately report if it finds at any time that these services

threaten the meaningful availability of broadband Internet access services or have been devised

or promoted in a manner designed to evade these consumer protections.

Wireless Broadband: Because of the unique technical and operational characteristics of wireless networks, and the competitive and still-developing nature of wireless broadband

services, only the transparency principle would apply to wireless broadband at this time. The

U.S. Government Accountability Office would report to Congress annually on the continued

development and robustness of wireless broadband Internet access services.

 

 

except this part which i guess it refers to g3 and g4 (mobile) networks (?)

  Quote

Wireless Broadband:

Because of the unique technical and operational characteristics of wireless networks, and the competitive and still-developing nature of wireless broadband

services, only the transparency principle would apply to wireless broadband at this time. The

U.S. Government Accountability Office would report to Congress annually on the continued

development and robustness of wireless broadband Internet access services.

maybe i'm too naive and can't read between the lines, but i see only a statement of principles and the companies themselves propose fines up to 2mil and injuctions for violating them. kinda weird for a corporation to propose being fined no?

then in the google site they say

  Quote

Second, we agree that in addition to these existing principles there should be a new, enforceable prohibition against discriminatory practices.

so I dunno, it seems like the statement and intentions are being misrepresented, but again, maybe i'm just naive.