Skip to main content

Google:

I just got off a media conference call with Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg.  

They announced a new policy recommendation that would kill the Internet as we know it, if implemented by FCC Chair Julius Genokowski and other policy makers.

(Thanks so much for putting this on the most recced list -- please keep em coming so more people join the fight!)

The Google/Verizon deal (also posted online) basically says:

  • The old "wireline" Internet that will be irrelevant in a few years? We propose a "new, enforceable prohibition against discriminatory practices" on that.
  • New "wireless services" (aka the entire future of the Internet)? No equivalent nondiscrimination rules for that, but we'll "create enforceable transparency rules." That way, as Americans lose access to the free and open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away.
  • Just in case "wireless services" doesn't encompass the entire future of the Internet, a new class of "new services" is envisioned, which Schmidt and Seidenberg actively differentiated from "the public Internet." Basically, through private contracting, big corporations could deal directly with the Verizons and AT&Ts of the world to create the next YouTube, maybe dangle it without discrimination to the public just long enough for us to be hooked, and then discriminate like hell over it. But don't worry, the FCC will "monitor the development of these services."

Google, a company that I've long admired and currently hold thousands of dollars of stock in, just "went evil." 

That's why over 300,000 Americans have signed an open letter telling Google "don't be evil" -- protect Net Neutrality and the Internet's level playing field. You can sign here.

This letter was launched last week by 5 groups that use the Internet to organize millions of Americans around issues, and are now using the Internet to save the Internet itself -- Free Press, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, MoveOn, Credo Action, and ColorOfChange.

Why did Google cut this absurd deal, one that dramatically hurts its credibility in the online space?

We know why Verizon did it.

Verizon is a decrepit old company that made massive investments in old landline technology and is coming face-to-face with market irrelevance. In a properly functioning marketplace, Verizon would soon crumble and die and be replaced by modern-day innovators. The only way for them to stay in business is to block innovation and to put  tollbooths on the Internet that are in nobody's interest but Verizon's and other decrepit companies like AT&T.

There is no reason in  the world for Google, which has made smart investments in the future,to find common ground with Verizon on the issue of Internet openness. None. Zero. Zilch. Today's deal was unneeded, uncalled for, and incompatible with Google's "don't be evil" mantra.

Google's  decision to cut a deal with Verizon wreaks of either impatience or fear.  Either Google wasn't willing to wait for the Verizons of the world to  crumble and die -- and therefore moved it's own business development timeline up 5 or 10 years at the expense of the entire American public. Or, Google feared doing the dirty work that comes with being a leader -- despite launching a "Google Fiber for Communities" program that competes head-to-head with the decrepit incumbents, Google  feared actually having to fulfil their potential to defeat the bad guys.

So,  they cut a deal with the bad guys. And they're now asking the public to  accept two Internet experiences -- a great experience for the old Internet that will soon cease to exist, and an experience filled with discrimination and lack of a level playing field for the entire future of the Internet.

This is a moment for good people to stand up and be counted.

Click here to join over 300,000 Americans in telling Google: Don't be evil.

Then, help save the Internet by sending this link to your friends and asking them to join you in getting involved.

Google:

Originally posted to AdamGreen on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 12:15 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (252+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    norm, JekyllnHyde, Alumbrados, Angie in WA State, Odysseus, eugene, ogre, deben, DelRPCV, abarefootboy, nicolemm, BigOkie, mattman, emal, janinsanfran, juls, bread, TechBob, Debby, LynChi, Emocrat, mlharges, OLinda, KateG, eeff, Voodoo, blogswarm, Creosote, PBCliberal, Addison, susakinovember, MD patriot, eddieb061345, DaleA, CoolOnion, chuckvw, PBnJ, Glic, ivote2004, steelman, Voter123, Fe, splashy, psnyder, brainwave, grannyhelen, TiaRachel, Drew J Jones, churchylafemme, NYFM, dwahzon, defluxion10, chickeee, Greg in TN, RebeccaG, grrr, Pohjola, walkshills, Oaktown Girl, zerelda, tomjones, BillieJohn, rambler american, GeegeeMI, greeseyparrot, sawgrass727, Julie Gulden, rapala, nailbender, joanneleon, Bluesee, NoMoreLies, wsexson, Independent Musings, sap, Simplify, truong son traveler, snacksandpop, Dobber, cfk, LNK, Pam from Calif, ladybug53, skyounkin, bmaples, sunbro, SBandini, nyseer, coolbreeze, Dunvegan, dsteffen, peacestpete, Ekaterin, Mother Mags, martini, esquimaux, stef, victoria2dc, martyc35, Son of a Cat, Lefty Coaster, blueoasis, MJ via Chicago, 4Freedom, Sagebrush Bob, dirtfarmer, murphthesurf, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, blueoregon, airmarc, Statusquomustgo, jjellin, markthshark, NonnyO, pat of butter in a sea of grits, Tamar, One Pissed Off Liberal, pgm 01, lightfoot, Haningchadus14, Cat Whisperer, dmh44, mamabigdog, linkage, karmsy, Thunder Dreamer, Jimdotz, greenchiledem, certainot, Steve In DC, DWG, joyful, Kentucky Kid, mudslide, millwood, uciguy30, LWelsch, Zydekos, keikekaze, Terra Mystica, Empower Ink, MKinTN, mconvente, scooter in brooklyn, zerone, indyada, elwior, Satyanand, lineatus, jamess, mikeconwell, royce, geomoo, Jeff Y, Jacques, o the umanity, James Kresnik, allie123, dmhlt 66, immigradvocate, statsone, 1BQ, Ripeness Is All, J M F, Neon Vincent, UkieOli, litoralis, greengemini, Uosdwis, bridoc, Rabbithead, dark daze, tr GW, jmknapp53, John Shade, ZilV, The Liberty of Meat, obscuresportsquarterly, sanglug, allep10, Houston Gardener, Tommymac, Leftcandid, Cleopatra, smileycreek, brentbent, confitesprit, marabout40, p gorden lippy, foolknot, roadbear, LaughingPlanet, jethrock, GeeBee, Crabby Abbey, angelajean, Giles Goat Boy, Eddie L, melpomene1, DiegoUK, cai, Earth Ling, JRandomPoster, roystah, MsGrin, Jason Rosenbaum, DirkFunk, Oh Mary Oh, Actbriniel, quixoto, Little Dieter Needs to Fly, Colorado is the Shiznit, xgy2, FeloniousMonk, moondance, DoubleT, sixthestate, poorbuster, Possiamo, BlueJessamine, the national gadfly, asterkitty, Situational Lefty, justsayjoe, marleycat, moldyfolky, LSmith, worldlotus, corvaire, Dr Marcos, curtisgrahamduff, Archie2227, lincoln deschain, TheRyeChip, Book of Hearts, rscopes, zenox, stunvegas, jaebone, Mike Peterson, PrometheusUnbound, anthony21, Dom9000, CalliopeIrjaPearl, BeyondNovember, Williston Barrett, LiberalATX, Eric Nelson, DarkWater, Ultranaut, stwidre, 2010ftc
    •  google (45+ / 0-)

      google the new aol.  They simply dont understand that they are very replacable.

      There is nothing that google does that a dozen other comapnies dont also do. Its not as easy to repalce a provider do to hardware and so forth,  as for what google does however? they can be replaced instantly.  They are like a popular nightclub, just cause it is cool, hip and popular this week, doesnt mean it will be next week.

      (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

      by dark daze on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 12:54:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You're several years late (22+ / 0-)

      in reaching this conclusion.

      Google, a company that I've long admired and currently hold thousands of dollars of stock in, just "went evil."  

      This comment was brought to you by Goldman-Sachs: Our clients' interests always come first.

      by Kingsmeg on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 12:56:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Adam just doesn't understand what is goin on here (10+ / 0-)

        What Adam's complaint here boils down to it that the agreement doesn't cover wireless. He dismisses what CNET said:

        The major breakthrough in the proposal is an agreement that the nondiscrimination clause that the Federal Communications Commission has proposed as part of its regulatory efforts would be enforceable.

        As meaningless because nothing is said about wireless and he thinks wireline will soon be going away. First off he is wrong about wireline. Even if the 'last mile' comes to be dominated by wireless devices, the bulk of Internet traffic will go through the wireline network for most of it's journey even if it's to a wireless device. Second there can easily be many, many 'last mile' wireless providers so the question of policy regarding a relative handful of longline providers is important. So I think claiming that this agreement is meaningless because it is essentially an agreement about the past is wrong, and dismissing it as only half a loaf is short sighted. See my diary for a different view.

        FYI: Verizon-Google Legislative Framework Proposal

        Above all, please keep in mind that what Google is pushing for here is a public Internet governed by laws and not by private agreement.

        •  I don't read it that way. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NoMoreLies

          If I read the agreement correctly, the provider can break net neutrality in any device that uses anything outside of wire. The delivery to the device may be over wire -- and thus protected -- but not the delivery from the wireless device to your personal device. Isn't that correct?

          Also -- and not to go off into CT-ville, just asking -- is there anything to the fact that they use "wireline" when most non-wireless delivery is over fiber? Just wondering.

          As for CNET -- I would hope their analysis would be unbiased. Don't know about their editorial / advertising wall, though.

          Bruce in Louisville
          Visit me at brucemaples.com

          Follow me on Twitter: @brucewriter

          by bmaples on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 06:21:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But Wireless is different. Please Understand! (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Creosote, admiralh, pgm 01

            Landlines and wireless are absolutely different. To quote a poster on Slashdot, where they know a thing or two about the technology:

            The bandwidth available for wireless transmission is determined by the range of frequencies available, divided by the number of users on that band. It's a FIXED amount. The FCC's not going to widen it just because, there are too many considerations for it.

            You can only achieve a given data speed over wifi. We've improved it over time. But there is a physical limit for reliability of the signal, and that's why wireless is a different story. With wired (or land-based into wifi hotspots) you can just lay more lines in parallel, add a separate color laser to your fiber, etc. which makes it feasible to upgrade and widen the bandwidth. When you have an easily maintainable infrastructure, you don't mind letting it be used freely without priority restrictions.

            Now pictures this: if wireless providers went all net neutral as per your calls, then a phone call would have the same priority as an app downloading updates in the background. Do you know you're going to always have good enough reception to guarantee call quality? Or are OS/firmware updates not more important than that stupid youtube of a dog who can't get up?

            The point is that for wireless, there is a need to prioritize bandwidth, and because it's a fixed bandwidth, if you want priority over something else, you can't just claim it like you do on a landline network.

            For a different perspective see my diary Google Verizon Announce Terms of Deal

            •  Wireless is already heading in a bad direction (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Odysseus

              with specific walled garden content and it is not hard to imagine it being worse in the future.  Providers should be able to knock down bandwidth hogs but they should not be prioritizing data from certain sites.  

              For example, lets say AT&T prioritized movie downloads from Itunes, while bumping Netflix downloads to the back of the line or blocking it completely as part of an exclusivity deal from Apple. That should be unacceptable and illegal, however dropping a video stream of any sort because the tower is saturated should be fine.  Network management is fine, content management is not.  Companies should block simply based on use or overuse and have clear, easy to understand rules as to what the limits are and what constitutes abuse.  The law needs to be written to make sure that they can't weasel in content management while claiming network management.

              •  I'm curious how they can tell what is the content (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                pgm 01

                How does a wireless service tell video from still images and text, other than video tends to come from one source (youtube), non-video from other sources (salon.com)? Could somebody who wants their video site to get more bandwidth disguise their video content?

                ORGANIZE early, ORGANIZE often.

                by bicycle Hussein paladin on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 07:16:04 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  In order to tell what the packets are (0+ / 0-)

                  they can use deep packet inspection.  This means they actually look at what each packet contains.

                  IP headers have not changed much over time and contain only basic information like source and destination address, which means they are not a reliable way to identify traffic types to assure the proper handling of priority traffic like voice and video. Deep packet inspection, on the other hand, has monitoring and traffic control applications – both of which are controversial due to the fear that carriers will manage Internet traffic to their own advantage.

                  Deep packet inspection primer

                  Lets say you had a bucket brigade moving a line of baskets through a shopping mall.  Each basket has basic information like the to and from on it and anybody in between could read it but not look in the basket.  What deep packet inspection does is look in the basket and figures out what the basket contains.  You could identify a piece of a poster in the basket and know that what is being sent is an image.  Essentially that is what is happening in the digital form, they look in the packet and figure out that the packet contains data consistent with an mpeg stream or a Skype call.  If it is unencrypted traffic, they can assemble the packets and see the end result or even, as Comcast did, change the packets.  

                  In the case of Comcast, they were taking packets from Bittorrent and changing them to force one side to stop sending data.  It would be the equivalent of an operator interrupting your call to somebody, and impersonating your voice, ending the conversation by saying I have to go, good bye making the other person hang up thinking you were done with the conversation.  They stopped doing that after being exposed and even the government decided that action went too far.  Both Iran and China use DPI to stop traffic to sites they have blacklisted.

            •  stupid video of a dog, or police brutality (0+ / 0-)

              Your arguments make a lot of sense, but then I read this:

              Or are OS/firmware updates not more important than that stupid youtube of a dog who can't get up?

              In a very big way, the youtube video of the dog who can't get up is NOT stupid, is IMPORTANT, because it's created and consumed by private individuals. Instead of a dog, it could be the police officer who body-checks a cyclist and then charges him with assault, or peace activists filming a protest that most news sites won't cover...

              Really, here of all places I shouldn't need to explain why youtube videos are just as important as any other content.

              ORGANIZE early, ORGANIZE often.

              by bicycle Hussein paladin on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 07:38:43 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Google wants to be our self appointed gatekeeper (33+ / 0-)

      to the internet. Fuck Google.

      Verizon just sold their local phone operations here to some company I'd never heard of. I thought their first bill was junk mail. Fuck Verizon.

      "These old Wall Street boys are putting up an awful fight to keep the government from putting a cop on their corner." - Will Rogers

      by Lefty Coaster on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 12:58:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Verizon in northern New England (7+ / 0-)

        sold its stuff to Fair Point a few years ago, a company that clearly was in way over its head. Fair Point faced incredible consumer complaints and lost much of its phone business to Comcast. Now Fair Point is in bankruptcy, at least in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont. Gross incompetence. If I had an alternative I'd drop them like a hot potato. I can't even get Comcast where I live, not that Comcast is any bargain.

        "I'll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours" -Bob Dylan said that.

        by rambler american on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:27:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Fair Point--easily the most incompetent co. ever (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Creosote

          They could not get our telephone turned back on--yes, we had already been using them--because of some mis-entered digit somewhere.  They went without our payments for several months while not managing to solve this problem, the problem of turning on the phone of an established customer.  That is a typical example.  They were so bad they were almost fun.

          My condolences.  Maybe you should just go cellular?

          Don't believe everything you think.

          by geomoo on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 08:10:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I did :-) (0+ / 0-)

            Go cellular, that was. Oh, the joys of Fairpoint invasion in upstate NH. Bleah.

          •  I'd go cellualr except (0+ / 0-)

            cell reception where we live is spotty and to make matters worse Fair Point is my only option for DSL unless I want to go satellite which is half again as expensive. Ironically, just after I posted my original comment I tried to make a phone call and instead of a dial tone all I could get was a busy signal. I called Fair Point on my cell and after their interminable phone tree I reached a human who said I should try... and that's when my spotty cell reception took over.

            "I'll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours" -Bob Dylan said that.

            by rambler american on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 12:53:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  thanks for the link - signed & donated (13+ / 0-)

      This is too important to ignore.  In my personal note I pointed out that losing net neutrality means losing the kind of innovation that led to Google.  Of course, maybe that's what they're afraid of -- maybe they think they can't keep up with new ideas and they want to enshrine the old ones.
      I was thinking about making my next phone an android-based one (since my wireless contract is with Verizon), but now I'll wait and see who is the least evil:  Google or Apple (since Apple hasn't been acting very well lately).

      If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

      by Tamar on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:01:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Android is not iPhone. Please understand! (12+ / 0-)

        In the popular mind Google is in competition with Apple because Apple makes the iPhone and Google makes Android, which is seen as the iPhone's new rival. The iPhone has been everybody's new darling, but please understand what iPhone is. It is owned lock, stock and barrel by Apple. If you want to buy it, you buy it from Apple. If you want to write software for it, you do it on Apple's terms, and for now, if you want to use it, you use it on AT&T.

        Android, on the other hand, is a mobile operating system based on the Linux kernel and while Google developed it, Google doesn't own it. Android is Open Source Software, the entire source code [which you will never see for the iPhone] is available under the open source Apache license.

        Anybody can make Android phones, any carrier can service them and anybody can write software for them, that is the nature of Open Source. For this reason alone, progressive should favor the Android over the iPhone.

        •  There are a couple problems with that... (5+ / 0-)

          Namely, almost all Android handsets are designed to try and prevent you from installing your own build of Android (The exception being the Nexus One, which is no longer sold in the US).  This isn't Google's fault, but it is a legitimate problem.

        •  of course not. but Android is Google (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Creosote, ladybug53, elwior

          and that's my point.  I was saying that at first I was intrigued by the iphone (based on my love of my ipod touch), but then was disgusted with Apple's reaction to the problems and also did some reading about what advantages something like the Droid X might have -- so I started thinking that I might shift to an Android-based phone, but then this new info comes out about Google.  And I was already a little concerned because Motorola makes the Droid X and I'm aware of the sweetheart deal between Motorola and Guiliani that led to major communication break downs during 9/11 and was responsible for the deaths of many of the first responders.
          What it comes down to is that all the companies are corrupt and I guess when I go to choose a phone I'll look at which is the lesser of the evils (in addition to cost and features).

          If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

          by Tamar on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:50:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, you can always get an HTC Android Phone. (0+ / 0-)
          •  Andriod is not Google (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            HRs Kevin

            Andriod is a mobile phone O/S that is not owned by Google. You don't need Google's permission to use it or have to pay Google for it.

            From the Andriod Open Source Project website:

            Here you can find the information and source code you need to build an Android-compatible device.

            Android is an open-source software stack for mobile devices, and a corresponding open-source project led by Google. We created Android in response to our own experiences launching mobile apps. We wanted to make sure that there was no central point of failure, so that no industry player can restrict or control the innovations of any other. That's why we created Android, and made its source code open.

            That means literally that you can download the software and create your own Android based phone and not own Google or anyone else a thin dime. It is open source. Same as FireFox, same as Linux or Open Office and the price is the same. And since you have the source code you can modify it, debug it and extend it completely independent of Google. I know the Open Source model is a little hard to wrap your head around for those that have never seen real socialism in action, but there it is.

            For a different perspective see my diary Google Verizon Announce Terms of Deal

            •  fascinating. So Android is kind of a contribution (0+ / 0-)

              to wireless communications, right?  Why did Google do it?
              And yes, I do understand in a limited fashion the notion of open source.  I use Firefox and love it.
              What I've never understood about Mozilla or other "socialist" (as you call it) projects like Wikipedia, is how they survive financially.  I know Wikipedia was (is?) having financial problems and I've donated.  but how does Firefox survive?
              Google makes $$$ on advertisements, but these other programs/projects don't have advertising.
              Isn't BitTorrent a similar sort of thing?

              If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

              by Tamar on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:35:31 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Progressives should now boycott all things Google (0+ / 0-)

          including Android. Besides, it's a crap platform.

          I never liked you and I always will.

          by Ray Blake on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 09:47:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Where did u get the idea wireless is the future? (5+ / 0-)

      New "wireless services" (aka the entire future of the Internet)? No equivalent nondiscrimination rules for that, but we'll "create enforceable transparency rules." That way, as Americans lose access to the free and open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away.

      Now, I'm not happy with what the carriers have been offering for wireless services... which is why I don't have anything but basic phone service.

      But, I also don't really care to watch crappy downgraded videos wirelessly..  wired homes and businesses will be the standard for many years to come.

      And, I have no problem with a second tier for special high-bandwidth services.. as long as there can be no blocking or prioritization of traffic on the "open internet" tier.

      90% of internet users will be happy with the open internet.  Net Neutrality is, in part, pushed by the 10% who want gigabit speeds at dialup prices.  Well, people who want expanded services should be willing to pay for it.

      "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

      by Skeptical Bastard on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:20:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  from my iPhone (5+ / 0-)

        think about the progress from the old Nokia phones to the iPhone now...now imagine the future. It's not tethered to a wire in your wall, I assure you.

        •  Oh wait.. crappy video (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Caelian, JT88, Tunk, linkage, mconvente

          on a 4 inch screen on one of the most closed systems to ever exist is your idea of the future?  (ok.. maybe not exactly crappy because they have shrunk them to 4 inches..)  You suffer from reduced expectations.  

          Can you play High Def videos from that connection on your 50 inch LCD?

          How do flash videos look on that unit?

          As predicted, iPhone users yell the loudest for "net neutrality" when they have bought into a system that is neither open nor net neutral.

          "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

          by Skeptical Bastard on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:54:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're ignorant. (5+ / 0-)

            I can stream HD video over my Sprint Palm Pre to my laptop over WiFi, and then through HDMI to my TV.  My Sprint 3G phone gives speeds 3x faster than the DSL in my home, which has crappy old wiring.  That's today, not the future.

            Obligatory AT&T/iPhone dig: AT&T & the iPhone are yesterday's poorly implemented technology, with good marketing.

            No on Prop 8::Sometimes I get to hitch a ride on the Democratic Bus--they let me stand on the back bumper.

            by steve04 on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 02:01:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sorry, but what? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mattman, mconvente, elwior

              You're talking up the Pre and ripping the iPhone?  That seems a bit silly.

              That said, I like Sprint.  Not a fan of AT&T, but I don't want anything to do with Verizon.  I'd much rather see a Sprint iPhone than a Verizon one.  Fuck Verizon.

              Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

              by Drew J Jones on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 02:16:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Maybe I misread Skeptical Bastard (4+ / 0-)

                I think s/he was also poking fun at the iPhone.  The overarching point I was trying to make, and maybe SB too, is that the are dozens of phones on carriers not named AT&T which offer data speeds faster than most DSL and some Cable modem connections, that can then share that internet connection over WiFi or USB tethering to a computer, which can then feed signal to a TV.

                I have personally streamed HD hulu videos through my phone to my computer and out the HDMI port to my TV.  Today.

                I'm a big believer in wired connections, but the truth is that in my old San Francisco home, the wiring is too poor for good DSL speeds, so wireless makes more sense.  At my parents' rural home, there is no DSL or cable, so wireless makes more sense.

                Wired only makes more sense in new construction or major renovation, which isn't really sustainable or cost-effective in many cases.

                No on Prop 8::Sometimes I get to hitch a ride on the Democratic Bus--they let me stand on the back bumper.

                by steve04 on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 02:24:20 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I agree to some extent. (7+ / 0-)

                  A lot of areas just don't have the cable needed for the fast speeds you get elsewhere.  I was running 30Mbps in DC.  For the same money, I only get about 18 in Tallahassee.  Still plenty good, of course, but it helps to illustrate the point that speed can drop off quite a bit once you're outside of major markets.

                  I think the wireless stuff is going to do a lot of good bringing better speeds in many places, but the carriers need to be beaten senseless.  They need to be Dumb Pipes™.

                  Google is part of the problem on that.  The large number of Android makers means Verizon has all the leverage.

                  Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

                  by Drew J Jones on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 02:31:51 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  There's a reason (7+ / 0-)

                    Having spent a goodly number of years in this industry...
                    Metro markets are much easier to build out with high bandwidth infrastructure, as

                    Fiber is often existing throughout the area, and if not, is not a huge pull in terms of distance, and is net-positive financially since you can utilize the fiber bandwidth for a number of uses/users once you have it implemented.

                    Towers and access points are often easier to install, since you have a density of buildings that can be used for installation. Plus there are a mass density of towers/access points already, so adding equipment is relatively easy--which means cheaper.

                    Large switches and routers are able to be implemented across the metro area to feed the access points in a more cost-effective way, because

                    More subscribers per square mile/KM allows for costs to be spread more fully out over a subscriber base. In other words, you have a mass of subscribers and can (hopefully) make money from day one of the infrastructure rollout.

                    When you move to a more suburban or rural area, it's just harder in every way. You have to run fiber out to the tower sites and may not be able to sell bandwidth to anyone else, meaning you have to shoulder the majority of the cost of laying the fiber to all the access points. You have to find tower/access point sites in areas where people don't want your fake trees or towers on their schools and in their neighborhoods. You have to deal with a fraction of the subscriber base utilizing the fast new (expensive) access points you just installed--many access points never run in the black, financially. And finally, there's just so much budget to install the equipment and fiber throughout the rest of the country--and it's a big country.

                    I did a lot of work in Europe and it's amazing how much easier it is to make the business plan work for a telecom, due to population density in a given area.

                    This doesn't excuse the telecoms for promising us the moon and stars and then only delivering a small asteroid. It just helps to understand what a national carrier is up against.

                    Scary Liberal Internet Activist (who just happens to look like a normal guy)

                    by marksb on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 03:39:36 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  I don't want my computer to be a fucking TV. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            shigeru

            I retain control of what runs on my computer, and I don't want to give that up for some mass-market garbage hi-def video or streaming movies or any other bullshit made by the big content providers.

        •  your iPhone message went over the wireline for (11+ / 0-)

          most of it's journey. That's the point you miss in so easily dismissing a good agreement because it only covers 'wireline'. The message from your proprietary iPhone was 'wireless' to the nearest cell tower. After that those message packets were governed by rules you dismiss as being for the morbid wireline. But I guess for a non-techie, out of sight is out of mind.

          For a different view see my diary.

          •  But can't that last10% be a bottleneck? (0+ / 0-)

            Serious question: even if the 90% of the "trip" that is wireless is safe, if most people are using wireless devices, then couldn't the wireless provider still block or favor content in the wireless portion of the transmission? In other words, who cares if youtube is "there", somewhere on the internet, if most people's wireless devices get crappy bandwidth on cat videos and footage of a police brutality shot by private citizens (but get okay bandwidth on netflix for an extra $1/month)?

            ORGANIZE early, ORGANIZE often.

            by bicycle Hussein paladin on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 07:28:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  It doesn't bother you in the least... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Skeptical Bastard

          ...that true open source activists like Clay Claiborne are telling you that your campaign is completely misguided?

          You really don't understand open source, the origins or net neutrality, or network infrastructure, and you are the owner of a closed device, with a closed proprietary platform, locked into a single carrier, with a supplemental data plan (read: you are already paying more for data, and are happy that AT&T -- the company that assisted Bush to spy on US citizens -- gives you the privilege of paying more) -- and yet you are waging war on the one major corporation that made net neutrality a cause celebre in the news? A company publicly committed to open platforms, open devices, and universal access to internet content? Whose very business model depends on expanding internet access, making all users content providers, and making internet access as cheap as possible?

          So, you've basically created a flash mob of (relatively) technologically illiterate netizens threatening to switch to Microsoft and Yahoo -- two companies that abandoned their commitments to net neutrality years ago, both of whom actively collaborate with the Chinese government to censor search results and jail dissidents -- all because you have a tenuous understanding of the economic and technological landscape here?

          You basically have already committed to tiered pricing on your primary device, you support AT&T (contra the Electronic Frontier Foundation) and you are waging war against Google, because they've laid out a set of principles that embraces net neutrality for all of wireline, but have carved out a little niche for proprietary smartphone devices like your iPhone -- so as not to wage war on the very folks like yourself that have chosen to not truly understand open source, and are comfortable with limited options, closed content and regular censorship (like that which Apple uses to police its app content).

          I think when you really understand this issue, you'll regret this campaign. Hopefully, you'll take the time (and set aside your pride) to actually understand it.

          'Fie upon the Congress' - Sen Bob Byrd

          by Maxwell on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 11:14:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I agree: There's only so much wireless bandwidth (12+ / 0-)

        OTOH wired bandwidth over fiber is essentially unlimited, at least for the next few decades.

        [The following is directed to the diary in general, not to SB's comment.]

        You want to know what's really evil?  How about the fact the USA consumers pay so much more for bandwidth than Japanese or Europeans?  How about the fact that you can't get a completely open-source cell phone so you can't control whether the phone is reporting exactly where you are at all times?

        Big Joe Helton: "I pay Plenty."
        Chico Marx: "Well, then we're Plenty Tough."

        by Caelian on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 02:30:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  As far as the cost/pricing is concerned (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Buffalo Girl

          You are dealing with a completely different kettle of fish in terms of nationwide rollout of access equipment compared to almost every other country. It just costs a lot more to cover our country than it does in most European or Asian countries (China and Russia excluded, where only urban regions are covered). This is not an excuse, it's just helpful to realize that it's really expensive to install a nationwide broadband wireless network. And we are talking about almost a complete replacement in equipment moving from one technology to another (3G to 4G). AT&T was blown away by their obligation to support the iphone when it sold so well--and people started using much larger bandwidth--and they still haven't recovered (their fault for failing to envision the results of offering the service, but still...)

          Scary Liberal Internet Activist (who just happens to look like a normal guy)

          by marksb on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 03:54:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Why the strawman? (9+ / 0-)

        Net Neutrality is, in part, pushed by the 10% who want gigabit speeds at dialup prices. Well, people who want expanded services should be willing to pay for it.

        Net Neutrality advocates are generally NOT looking for freebies; that's a near-echo of a corporate talking point.

        What could BPossibly go wrong?? -RLMiller

        by nosleep4u on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:33:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Further, the size of the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        James Kresnik

        phone screen has nothing to do with anything, because the phone can easily be connected to a larger display device.

        What could BPossibly go wrong?? -RLMiller

        by nosleep4u on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:35:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You're wrong. (8+ / 0-)

        NN is NOT about being unwilling to pay for high usage. My provider can charge me for my usage anytime, and if I'm a high-level user I would expect it.

        Net Neutrality is about the ability of the provider to manage content speed and even delivery based on the content itself.

        You want to view DailyKos? Sorry, we don't like that site, so we're going to slow it down. You want to view the Faux New site? We like them, so we'll deliver it quickly.

        THAT is the problem. If we allow the backbone providers to regulate content based on content type, content provider, or the actual content itself, the internet as we know it is over.

        Bruce in Louisville
        Visit me at brucemaples.com

        Follow me on Twitter: @brucewriter

        by bmaples on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 06:26:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Get a Grip! Content type must be prioritized. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          HRs Kevin

          From my dairy Google Verizon Announce Terms of Deal

          some people in this community who don't know the history and frankly are sometimes very confused by the technology and don't really understand net neutrality.

          Google CEO Eric Schmidt understands this. As he said while speaking about the Google Verizon meeting last week:

             "People get confused about Net neutrality," Schmidt said. "I want to make sure that everybody understands what we mean about it. What we mean is that if you have one data type, like video, you don't discriminate against one person's video in favor of another. It's OK to discriminate across different types...There is general agreement with Verizon and Google on this issue. The issues of wireless versus wireline get very messy...and that's really an FCC issue not a Google issue."

          One of those confused people is the very Josh Silver, the executive director of Free Press, that has been spearheading this critque of Google before the facts. Friday, on Amy Goodman's Democracy Now, Josh Silver said:

             So if, let’s say, that your Verizon provider is blocking or slowing down traffic, and you don’t like it, you don’t really have a choice. That’s problem number one. Number two, you know, losing net neutrality then allows these companies to prioritize some traffic—video, say—and de-prioritize others, and then what effectively happens is the internet becomes like cable television, where Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and Time Warner Cable decide what’s fast, what’s—how much it costs, and who’s slow.

          Eric Schmidt is right and Josh Silver shows that he doesn't understand the rights he seeks to defend. I have to support Schmidt and oppose Silver because I like watching Countdown on the Internet, on my own schedule and, for now, without commercials and if real-time data packets aren't given priority over say email packets, you can kiss applications that require data in real time, such as video and interactive games, goodbye.

          This question of what 'net neutrality really involves is so important to the discussion that I want to break it down even more for the non-technical by way of analogy, so let's take a ride on Josh Silver's Railroad.

          The railroad system is a lot like the Internet and I believe at one time there actually was a problem with the big RR barons making and breaking companies by favoring this ones freight over that ones. Hence the need for Railroad Neutrality. Now normally that would mean that every company's cars are treated the same, not that freight cars and passengers cars are given the same priority. Not So on Josh Silver's Railroad! In Josh Silver's brand of Railroad Neutrality all railroad cars are treated the same. Sometimes the coal cars have to wait days while the passenger cars go, sometimes the passengers have to wait days while the coal cars go and sometimes the milk spoils. Welcome to the Josh Silver Railroad.

      •  Wireless/Mobile IS the future and... (0+ / 0-)

        ...Eric Schmidt himself thinks so.

        This deal is extremely dangerous.

    •  epic fail, yo. (11+ / 0-)

      See my comment under the header "epic fail" to find out why.

      The way you gloat over ripping up the landlines, is exactly the way people gloated over ripping up the urban rail systems.

      I hope you enjoy the digital gridlock you're going to get if you're successful.  

    •  Unpossible. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mattman

      Google would never be evil.  I mean, it's right there in the company motto!

      If Apple and AT&T pulled this shit, there'd be no end to the outrage.

      Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

      by Drew J Jones on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 02:10:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Huh? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joe m, elwior, Cassandra Waites, dzog

      The wireline Internet will not become irrelevant. I fail to see how the busiest network servers in the world are supposed to operate over pure wireless connections. These servers handle terabytes of data daily, and there is no wireless technology in the works to replace their wired network connections. Yes network neutrality should be enforced over wireless channels, but that just covers the last mile from the WAP, whether it be LTE, WiMax, or regular WiFi. Everything up to that point must currently be transmitted via the WIRED Internet backbone.

      •  And who is using this connection? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus

        BofA has their own line.
        Citi probably does too.

        It's the little guys that don't have their own lines and rely on wireless - you know internet users.

        Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

        by k9disc on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 09:28:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Right - I agree that everything after the WAP (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Odysseus

          should also be network neutral, but that's a far cry from saying that the wired network neutrality is irrelevant. It's very relevant that traffic can get between any point B and any point A on the internet without being "discriminated" against by routers in between.

    •  I guess we'll be seeing if "too big to fail" (0+ / 0-)

      applies to Telcommies.

      I can't wait to give them even more of my money.  It's so much more gratifying that having our government increase their taxes.

      "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed." -Nancy Pelosi, 6/29/07.

      by nailbender on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 07:38:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  How do you define Net Neutrality? (0+ / 0-)

      I don't get a stable definition from your post -- just a lot of incendiary rhetoric.

      How does differential consumer pricing for rich media delivery (ie, gaming, HD video, etc) on mobile devices really violate "net neutrality" as it used to be known: open, free access to information?

      Unless you are using purely public internet terminals, which are rarely available for, say, interactive gaming, you are always paying a service provider for some form of access.

      Why is it an ethical good to argue for no cost differentiation for highly resource-intensive (read: needing substantial electrical generation) forms of content delivery?

      I don't get any sense that those folks that are going apeshit about the idea of differentiated consumer pricing models for resource-expensive content delivery are thinking about the technology, economics or ecological impacts of the emerging landscape. There are many ways in which arguing for free interactive gaming and mobile streaming television is counter-progressive.

      'Fie upon the Congress' - Sen Bob Byrd

      by Maxwell on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 07:50:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Try Bing for a search engine (0+ / 0-)

      A few days ago I did a Google search for an ancestor of mine whose info I know is online, thinking I could probably get back to a web site owned by someone who had incorrect info and I'd written to the owner earlier.  

      As the #1 hit, I got a bogus web site that was trying to sell info on someone obviously dead, including photos.  The only address he has in a cemetery, but this stupid web site didn't reflect that info.

      Several months ago I got this same web site when I did a search on a name I know is online (and connected to my genealogy).  I wrote to the web site owner, asked them nicely to take the info offline, including the pix they'd stolen from MY web site, since MY photos were not for sale!  I further pointed out that this person is dead and has no current address, and that they had NO authority to SELL the info on this person, and pointed out that the ONLY people listed on a genealogy web site are likely dead, as is the case with my data (I refuse to put info on living people online; all ethical genie researchers keep info on living people offline).  It took a couple of days of email exchanges, but they finally took MY info & pix they'd stolen from MY web site off their web site.

      After this latest find of yet another long-dead person on that same web site (as the #1 hit, no less, not even ten pages back!), I wrote to Google and told them I didn't appreciate the bogus web site coming up as the first hit since I knew it was a bogus web site and briefly explained why I know that.  So far, no response, but I still can't figure out why an obviously BOGUS web site came up as the #1 hit on a name search.

      They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich

      by NonnyO on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 08:14:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Support your local convicted monopolist. (0+ / 0-)

        Microsoft is possibly the single most evil tech company in existence.  There are a few others who try, notably Intel, but nobody can beat Microsoft for sheer vile accomplishment.

        -7.75 -4.67

        "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

        There are no Christians in foxholes.

        by Odysseus on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:07:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sure, why not? (0+ / 0-)

          At least Bing yielded hits on ancestral name searches that didn't include that bogus web site as the #1 hit.  I got fewer hits on Bing, but at least all were relevant.

          True, I'll probably use Google more than Bing, and I am thrilled spitless that Google Book's section has yielded so many old tomes for which the copyright long ago ran out (including one book I was looking for that an out-of-print bookseller couldn't even find, and for which I was prepared to pay quite a lot if they could find it, and downloaded it for free).  Lots of my ancestors were in colonial America so I have downloaded free volumes, historical tomes, that include my ancestors, and I recently downloaded the free version on Google of another genealogy book on one of my lineages that I paid $50 for when I got a hardcover reprint.

          Google had a good thing going, and what they are doing with books is commendable, but if they get too big for the monopolistic britches, some enterprising person will come along and invent a new and better search engine....

          They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich

          by NonnyO on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:48:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  With MoveOn having 5M members alone... (7+ / 0-)

    And with all the other organizations taking part - 300,000 isn't a really impressive number.  

    What the "holding feet to the fire" folks are doing isn't simply cutting off their nose to spite their face - it's cutting off their head to spite their face.

    by Jonze on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 12:21:38 PM PDT

  •  A worthy cause, no doubt (45+ / 0-)

    but I disagree with this much:

    Google's  decision to cut a deal with Verizon wreaks of either impatience or fear.

    Like hell--it reeks of a lot of fucking money.

    I've signed the petitions, regardless.

    STOP the demonstrable liars who deliberately and with malice ABUSE the private company airwaves which used to belong to The People.

    by o the umanity on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 12:22:21 PM PDT

    •  agreed (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Odysseus, mataliandy, jethrock, MsGrin

      That's part of the impatience...skipping to the money now as opposed to enabling various phones/functionalities later by not caving to the bad guys.

      •  You accidentally raise a good point. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus, mataliandy

        With the right traffic prioritization, AdHoc WiFi networks between phones would be good enough to eliminate the need for many cell phone towers and provide free voice over IP (VOIP).  Google has stated a desire for this in the past.  Without the right traffic prioritization, VOIP doesn't work well and conversations get interrupted.

        None of the coverage I have seen on this is clear as to whether Google is pushing for technology hooks to allow for that type of phone use, or that in concert with more $$$$ opportunities for Google, neither, or just the last.

        No on Prop 8::Sometimes I get to hitch a ride on the Democratic Bus--they let me stand on the back bumper.

        by steve04 on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 02:04:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  What reason does Google have (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        steve04, dzog

        to "cave to the bad guys"?

        This whole thing reeks of "we've only got half the story"...

        STOP the demonstrable liars who deliberately and with malice ABUSE the private company airwaves which used to belong to The People.

        by o the umanity on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:35:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly, it's all about the money (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mconvente

      Google is facing threats to it's growth by Apple, Microsoft and Yahoo.
      Over 99% of it's revenue in 2009 is based on advertisement.
      Apple is going to crowd them out of mobile, which is the new lucrative market.
      Their attempts to create a 2nd revenue stream have not borne fruit.
      They need a 2nd revenue "leg" to be stable.
      Verizon is their new best friend, and now they see an opportunity to sell out (just a little bit, in their opinion) and gain stability.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting

      by sacrelicious on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 02:40:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This Just Makes No Sense On So Many Levels (27+ / 0-)

    I like a lot of folks use a number of Google services, including AdWords for a number of my clients. Google has some really good blogs about their products I follow.

    Recently Google launched a project called Google Fiber for Communities. They're asking towns of around 50,000 to submit an RFP to Google to come in a wire every house with fiber.

    The reason is simple. They say they've got a lot of "neat" ideas of things they can do, yet our Internet connections are two slow to support them.

    So why they'd team up with Verizon on anything just makes no sense to me.

    "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

    by webranding on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 12:23:28 PM PDT

    •  For the m. traffic. (6+ / 0-)

      This is actually a good deal. It's going to hamstring comcast and their ilk and only put gates up on m. traffic. And we already have access restrictions on m. websites in the form of data packages. I don't see why people are all up in arms about this.

      •  It Is A Step In The Wrong Direction (23+ / 0-)

        I think we all know that folks like Verizon and AT&T would like to tier off the Internet like they do with cable TV packages. If you want quality access to something like YouTube, well you have to pay more each month. Mark my words this is going to happen sooner rather then later.

        "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

        by webranding on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 12:29:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How so if it only effects mobil (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dickie

          traffic? Not only that, but WiMax (Clear is already using this tech) is about to roll out and that would be considered the same as a wireline.

          •  Cause Do You Think For A Single Second (6+ / 0-)

            that the telecom companies wouldn't want to take their wireless model, a tiered system, into your house?

            "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

            by webranding on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 12:51:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Out of curiosity, how do you WiMax is going to be (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Doug in SF, DavidHeart

            treated as a wireline?

            •  Because it's considered a "last mile" connection (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dickie, James Kresnik

              from the main wired trunks running in the street, to your home or business.

              So instead of providing wired connections from your nearest "pedestal" (cable company) or the nearest DSLAM (telephone company) to your house, everything goes wireless that "last mile".

              Let me get this right: The "Constitution Party" wants to eliminate an Amendment?!

              by DavidHeart on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:21:54 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  By that logic though, EVERYTHING is a wireline (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DavidHeart

                at some point or another.  That's why this whole thing has been totally confusing me at this point ;)

                •  Think of it this way ... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Dickie, James Kresnik

                  if the IP device you use doesn't require wireless to connect, then you have a wired line. A PC/Mac or laptop/notebook/netbook can go either way, but wireless is optional, and usually enabled on the private side of your connection (behind the modem/router/switch/AP).

                  The WiMax concept ends at your home with a router able to pick up the WiMax signal. From that point it's a standard network: plug in an ethernet cable or WiFi b/g/n. WiMax doesn't demand you use wireless devices once in the home.

                  Let me get this right: The "Constitution Party" wants to eliminate an Amendment?!

                  by DavidHeart on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 03:16:37 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Wired vs wireless is in the end device. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Dickie

                  I think device service will fall into 2 categories:

                  1. Roaming: pure wireless like cellphones which  require no further "inside" support, and
                  1. Base units: desktops, laptops, and other "inside" devices fed by a private router.

                  Let me get this right: The "Constitution Party" wants to eliminate an Amendment?!

                  by DavidHeart on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 03:23:38 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  That's exactly right-EVERYTHING is a wireline (5+ / 0-)

                  for most of it's journey. What this agreement doesn't cover at this point is Internet on wireless phones and other broadband wireless devices like for notebooks. It does cover WiFi wireless and WiMax because those are controlled by the provider, which may be you. And it still covers data delivered over wireless broadband for 99% of it's journey. That is why I believe the diarist is wrong in dismissing this agreement and meaningless or worst.

              •  As far as a regulatory agency is concerned (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dzog

                it will remain wireless, because it is. There are decades of state and fed law defining wireline as copper wire. Even FIOS gets around wire line regs in some states.

                The biggest threat to America is not communism, it's moving America toward a fascist theocracy... -- Frank Zappa

                by NCrefugee on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 03:53:55 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  That is patently false.. (0+ / 0-)

          Google said just today that all of their services would remain on the "open internet".

          "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

          by Skeptical Bastard on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:23:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But, using terminology from the olden days (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Odysseus, James Kresnik

            At what interrupt level will it run? They can easily make the open internet "hard-wire" pipe low-priority relative to the tiers in the "wireless" pipe - just takes a few flags in their routers to prioritize content destined for the hard-wired pipe down to a the flow rate of cold molasses.

            Beware the everyday brutality of the averted gaze.

            by mataliandy on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 03:47:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  "They"... as in Google? (0+ / 0-)

              Or they as in the incredible spaghetti monster?

              Google indexes internet content and are a content provider -- they don't own the "pipes". They do not own the "open internet".

              As long as people live in houses, there is no economic incentive to slow the whole internet to molasses, when there's convenient global network infrastructure that flows straight into houses.

              'Fie upon the Congress' - Sen Bob Byrd

              by Maxwell on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 08:02:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  They (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Odysseus

                The "they" to whom I refer = anyone who will benefit from being able to regulate your content's delivery based on how much you or someone else is willing to pay.

                For example:

                1. Google will know what the traffic is, where it is coming from and where it's going to, so they can throttle it based on whatever criteria the choose. They can deliver you preferred content in your search results (delivered at a higher rate) before showing non-preferred content (at a lower rate), where "preferred" has everything to do with how much they're paid to deliver that content to eyeballs and nothing to do with your preferences. They can give you a lower bit rate for youtubes than they give your higher priority neighbor, who, perhaps pays a some nominal fee for the privilege. They might not ever charge directly for anything, but instead get a service-provider fee from the phone company in exchange for implementing certain bandwidth speeds for certain customers.
                1. Verizon is not the only broadband provider who will "benefit" from the rules set in place by this agreement. All large-scale providers of wireless internet services of any kind, from bandwidth, to content, to apps will be un-tethered from the rules that will apply to the "open" pipe. And they will be free to stop supporting that pipe at any time.

                Beware the everyday brutality of the averted gaze.

                by mataliandy on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 08:56:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You are confused. (0+ / 0-)

                  Google doesn't own or control any 'pipes' so they can't know "where it is coming from and where it's going to, so they can throttle it based on whatever criteria the choose." If they can do it, you can do it.

                  For a different perspective see my diary Google Verizon Announce Terms of Deal

                  •  Oy. (0+ / 0-)

                    This is really, really simple stuff. It's done all the time on corporate networks, and can be done just as trivially in the server farms at Google or any other provider of online services.

                    Companies reserve blocks of IP addresses. They then carve up those blocks when setting up their server farms, reserving some for their high-throughput needs and others for the unwashed masses.

                    The IP address is carried in every packet, and can be used as an identifier to determine how the packet should be treated. This is trivial stuff. Large corporations do this all the time - especially those that provide hosted services.

                    They reserve the IP blocks, carve up the blocks to create mini-farms within their server farms to separate, for example, their software's store & forward messaging service from, say, corporate email. They then set up their routers to give higher priority to the messaging service server farm and lower priority to the email servers.

                    Generally, they'll offer tiered levels of service, creating multiple server farms for the hosted service, each of which has a different assigned rate of throughput. They then set up the routers to prioritize data based on the segment of the IP block from which the data originates. The amount paid by the customer determines which server farm their traffic gets assigned to. High-cost farms have fewer customers assigned to them, so the servers themselves have a better response time, and their packets are routed at higher priority, so the overall experience is much faster for the higher tier customers than for those who pay for lower service quality.

                    Been there, done that, sent out the monthly quality of service reports to our customers, along with the bill for their throughput.

                    Beware the everyday brutality of the averted gaze.

                    by mataliandy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 10:50:02 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Wow, that's serious nonsense. (0+ / 0-)

                  Google can't "throttle" anyone. They don't "deliver" content to anyone. They provide an index of internet content; they are not broadband providers.

                  Moreover, per your other claims:

                  Google CEO Eric Schmidt repeatedly said on the call that Google would never pay for prioritized access and Google products would remain on the public internet. That's important, because it sets up check and balances between two companies: if Verizon does something to its network that affects the public internet, Google will be sure to notice, and no one wants an angry Google.

                  Oy vey. We on the left are truly lost if most of us are this technologically illiterate. I've worked in the software industry since the 90s, and the misconceptions about the internet in this thread hurt my head.

                  'Fie upon the Congress' - Sen Bob Byrd

                  by Maxwell on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 11:46:40 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The index they provide (0+ / 0-)

                    A lot of people are confused about this. Google has a tremendous amount of control over the data they display, including whose gets shown first.

                    The index they provide is nothing more than a view on the database(s). They can choose to have whatever flags they want in their database(s), and use those flags in ways that prioritize which content shows up first. They already sort the search results so that those who have paid for google ads get higher rankings. That's their whole income model. So, now they're telling us that they're willing to go further, in exchange for not having to pay the big broadband providers for better throughput.

                    Sure, google will never pay for prioritized access - good for them. More important is what they didn't say: their customers can pay THEM for prioritized access, and ISPs can PAY THEM fees for delivering certain content at certain rates. They do actually own their own routers and their own servers. They control which data is pulled from the database (just ask China), and they can control the rate at which different content is delivered through their own routers.

                    Alternatively, they can simply set a flag (or pass-through the ISP's flag) that indicates the priority of each packet, and the ISP will take care of the throttling on their own end.

                    This isn't rocket science. It's the kind of thing one does when one runs a business whose model includes sending lots and lots of data. You want your customers to pay more for a higher quality of service, and you want to provide less service for customers who can't/won't pay as much. I know this, because I've done it.

                    Beware the everyday brutality of the averted gaze.

                    by mataliandy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 10:29:07 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  May work for the (13+ / 0-)

        situation as it stands today but things change fast and any industry change has to be looked at from the point of view of 'What is the most unscrupulous bastard in the world likely to do with this'. Because it may not happen today or even tomorrow but it will happen.

        The Teabaggers are the GOP base

        by stevej on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 12:32:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  not sure what you're referring to -- could you (0+ / 0-)

        please explain (I'm savvier than the rest of my family but not that savvy).

        If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

        by Tamar on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:03:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  He/she is referring to this deal applying to (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wader, lightfoot

          mobile wireless devices (such as smartphones) and the websites built for those devices to access.

          •  Thank you! (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wader, Dickie, lightfoot, greengemini

            I had just started getting that as I read down.  
            But it's interesting to read the discussion about wired vs wireless, including the comment that pointed out there's lots of overlap.
            I wonder if there's a way to write the legislation so that anything carried over wires at at any point comes under the net neutrality rule.

            If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

            by Tamar on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:13:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm sure they could, which would essentially end (0+ / 0-)

              up making everything on the net applied to the rule.  At some point, somewhere, there will be a cable plugged into two or more devices ;)  Maybe one day in the future we'll have a totally wireless network, but that time isn't now, or even very soon.

            •  Useless distinction. (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Maxwell, Odysseus, mataliandy, mmacdDE

              A huge amount of traffic in the bay area is beamed wirelessly with directional antennas from San Bruno Mountain in South San Francisco down to the mountains above Los Gatos, west of San Jose.  I'm talking about something that might be double digit percentages of all web traffic for people in San Francisco.

              There's a whole lot of hand wringing going on, and no clear explanation of what we're all supposed to get angry about right now.

              No on Prop 8::Sometimes I get to hitch a ride on the Democratic Bus--they let me stand on the back bumper.

              by steve04 on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 02:08:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes microwave towers would be traditional "wired" (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                steve04

                The real distinction is Cellular vs nearly everything else.  Opaque terminology.

                -7.75 -4.67

                "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

                There are no Christians in foxholes.

                by Odysseus on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:14:18 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Isn't this still the proverbial 'slippery slope' (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bmaples, James Kresnik

        if it starts with m. traffic and that becomes 'ok.  what's next?

      •  They are mis-guided (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Buffalo Girl

        See my dairy for a different view.

      •  People are up in arms about it b/c (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joe m, Clay Claiborne

        ...they don't understand the economics or technology behind this.

        This is actually two companies making a reasonably pragmatic and ethical compromise -- and one likely to result in lower consumer pricing in the long run.

        But it doesn't make for an awesome story like "Google is taking away my intertubes!"

        Earlier this year, Google more or less cedes all of China to Baidu, Bing and Yahoo over Chinese surveillance of dissidents -- now, the very company that made Net Neutrality a cause celebre when other companies didn't even want to mention the words suddenly is out to get all internet users (who are its life bread)?

        It's a totally incoherent narrative.

        'Fie upon the Congress' - Sen Bob Byrd

        by Maxwell on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 07:56:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  LOL!!! ROFL!!! (0+ / 0-)

          This is actually two companies making a reasonably pragmatic and ethical compromise -- and one likely to result in lower consumer pricing in the long run.

          Funny stuff there.

          Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

          by k9disc on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 10:03:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Really? Glad you're amused. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Clay Claiborne

            But I think it's also a pose. You've already admitted in your conversations with WaveFunction that much of this conversation is confusing to you -- I expect precisely when people start talking about wireline and wireless.

            There's a reason why many open source activists in this thread think Adam's post is counterproductive. Many luminaries of the open source and net neutrality campaigns are actually employed by Google -- this is a reasonable compromise.

            Here's a neutral, non-hysterical analysis of this joint policy proposal if you actually want to take the time to understand it.

            'Fie upon the Congress' - Sen Bob Byrd

            by Maxwell on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 11:31:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hmm.. lost my other post... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Odysseus

              Followed the link. Thanks.

              I was simply laughing at :

              and one likely to result in lower consumer pricing in the long run

              Is that like 'one likely to result in better jobs in the future'? (NAFTA)

              or one likely to result in lower costs for cable for consumers?

              How about shopping for healthcare being likely to result in lower costs for medical consumers?

              There are no lower costs for consumers for services in the private sector. Ever. Services increase in price. Vital services increase in costs at whatever rate the government will allow.

              This is going to result in greater profits, nothing more.

              Our internet wellbeing or our pocketbooks have nothing to do with this. And the portion of your post that I quoted is pretty funny.

              Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

              by k9disc on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 12:33:32 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  I wonder if (10+ / 0-)

      Schmidt has won some internal fight. He is known to be pretty ambivalent about the whole do no harm thing.

      Bad sign though and I will be certainly looking at everything from accounts I host, adsense, adwords, Gmail, Google docs and other stuff. Big pain but I can't risk not doing it.

      I  will also be advising clients to look into good affiliate stuff for revenue - it is out there just requires some research and understanding the niche. Google's lack of transparency re the adsense set up has always perturbed me.

      Plus a lot more stuff - Google are big on analytics, well my attitude is fast becoming 'Analyse these dissappearing eyeballs.

      The Teabaggers are the GOP base

      by stevej on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 12:30:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I Am Going To Monitor And Think About How I (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        snacksandpop, James Kresnik, sharonsz

        use them as well. I'd say we are pretty similar cause we both sound like we use close to their full suite of products. I think at some levels folks don't realize the "death grip" Google has on so many services like AdWords, email, and of course search.

        Heck my 67 mom just got her first computer and learning has been slow. It was just a no brainer for me to set-up everything in Google (Email, docs, photos). Cause that way she only had to learn now to use a browser. Not Outlook, Office, or any other number of programs.

        I've never seen any data, but wonder how many people do the same thing.

        "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

        by webranding on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 12:34:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Lots of people.. (0+ / 0-)

          and with Google's promise to keep all of their services on the "open internet", I don't see how this proposal presents a problem.  For 90% of internet users, absolutely nothing changes.

          "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

          by Skeptical Bastard on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:26:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Google doesn't care about services. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Caelian, mataliandy, mconvente

      Google is not a software company.  Google is a data and advertising company.  That's why they give you services.  That's why you have Android and Chrome OS and GMail and all of that.

      Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

      by Drew J Jones on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 02:20:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  They didn't. It's bullshit. They denied it. (0+ / 0-)

      They'd be killing their own buisness model to do this.

      ---
      Toyota: Proof US Union Labor Still Does it Better

      by VelvetElvis on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 03:59:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This only will effect data package traffic (4+ / 0-)

      on mobile carriers. Not your cable or dsl connection.

    •  I changed my homepage from Google to Bing (8+ / 0-)

      Google can go to hell.

      "These old Wall Street boys are putting up an awful fight to keep the government from putting a cop on their corner." - Will Rogers

      by Lefty Coaster on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 12:36:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I Do A Lot Of Search Engine Related Stuff (8+ / 0-)

        and Bing is actually a quality product. If you've not used it much you are going to do a search one day and get results in a manner you've never seen before and think to yourself, "wow that is kind of neat."

        "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

        by webranding on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 12:38:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree.. I use Bing (Microsoft) 99% (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dunvegan, greengemini, dark daze

          of the time and I only use Google search ever onc in a while.

          Google search is just a big mess compared to Bing. Ask, Dogpile, Lycos and Yahoo search are also big messes. Bing by far is the cleanest search engine.

          Who knew (besides myself since I use only Microsoft Search engines since I saterted building computers 20 years ago) that Microsoft would top Google with Bing?

          Also I can't wait for IE 9.. it is going to make Firefox super suck. If you haven't checked out IE 9 Platform Prevew, I suggest trying it out. it is 95% Acid 3 compliant and 100% CSS3 compliant and 97% HTML5 compliant.. they have a breakdown of browsers at IE Test Center.

          I have to admit, just as a Test platform without the tabs and buttons at the top, the browser capabilities blow every other browser out of the water currently. Just like Bing is going to blow Google out of the water after killing Net Neutrality.

          •  as a web designer (7+ / 0-)

            I've read some things about IE9, none of them make me very optimistic about it.

            •  Reading and testing is not the same (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              linkage

              Most of the reviews you read are 90% biased against MS and their browsers.

              What I recommend is DLing the test platform and run tests on your won website or create test code to run in IE 9.. You will be pleasntly suprised at how fast IE9 is, the framerates, image and sound aquisition speeds (almost instantly in a broadband connection.. about 6x faster than IE8 and about 3x faster than Firefox).

              I don't say take my word for it.. I say test the browser preview and make your own judgement.

              I use FF myself most of the time, but IE9 has me sold for what I view and use on the web.

              MS has come a very, very long way from IE 7 and 8.

              •  That bias is not without reason. (14+ / 0-)

                The sheer amount of frustration and stress that IE has caused Web developers the world over in the last several years is staggering to contemplate. Fuck, the lost economic productivity due to IE6's shitty CSS support (only recently have people been dropping IE6 support) is a scary thought.

                Formerly known as Jyrinx.

                “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” ― Emma Goldman

                by Code Monkey on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:12:28 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I agree. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  linkage

                  But you have to remember where IE6 and the design came from. It came from their comeptition with AOHell and Netscape.

                  However MS is making leaps and bounds to get back to the forefront of W3C standards and W3C is working directly with MS on the creation of IE9.

                  Currently IE 9 blows any other browser out of the water as far as web standards go, the only thing lacking in IE 9 currently is the toolbar controls, but then again what do you expect of a platform preview.

                  I understand people's fustration over the previous incarnations of IE.. hell I am disappointed in IE8 even though it is a vast improvement over IE 6 and 7.

                  IE 9 makes IE 8 look like IE 6, and the current version of FF looking like IE 7 (figuratively).

                  But as I stated, don't take my word for it, DL and test it yourself.. write your own code, use it on various web sites (you have to enter the URLs manually under the File Menu). I just say check it out before pasing judgement.

                  •  I'm not saying I *know* it sucks. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Odysseus, linkage, dzog

                    Hell, it would be awesome if IE joined the ranks of standards-conforming browsers. (Though the exclusion of XP users worries me some; anything slowing down the uptake of the new version will force us devs to pretend IE9 doesn't exist for that much longer.)

                    I'm just saying there's a damn good reason people are skeptical.

                    (Also, no fair comparing an IE beta to other browsers' released versions.)

                    Formerly known as Jyrinx.

                    “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” ― Emma Goldman

                    by Code Monkey on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:28:55 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm with you Code Monkey. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Odysseus, Code Monkey

                      Until pretty recently, the abomination that is IE6 has been the majority browser out there, despite it's utter non-standards-compliant crappiness. It didn't matter if it was a legacy product of the 90's browser wars - the pain it inflicted upon the web development community continued long after Netscape and AoL (as their former heavyweight selves) were lost in the mists of Internet history. Not until IE8 did Microsoft final decide to start to behaving as a responsible citizen of the wired world, rather than as a King Kong intent on controlling it.

                      That's just too recent a development for me to get all gushy and effusive about Bing or forthcoming versions of IE. Basically, as I see it, Microsoft needs to be putting out products this good to make up for egregious past wrongs. Until they've logged a solid decade of excellent, standards-compliant software, they're still on my black list.

                      ---

                •  The real ire there should be the people still (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mmacdDE, linkage, dzog, Code Monkey

                  using IE6, businesses in particular. Sadly my industry is chock-full of those people (38% of our website visitors are on it still.)

                  Nothing like encoding three different versions of the same video because you want it to be playable even on a backwards browser that may not even have shockwave flash on it...

                  "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace

                  by John Shade on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 02:09:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Ouch :-( n/t (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    linkage, dzog

                    Formerly known as Jyrinx.

                    “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” ― Emma Goldman

                    by Code Monkey on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 03:10:48 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  And having to design (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    dzog

                    for users who still have 800x600 monitors.

                    Yep, I have some. Way too many, actually. And way too many older users (many of whom are coworkers) who don't like to scroll. In ANY direction.

                  •  By my Google Analytics numbers I've got (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    dzog

                    30 times as many IE6 users as I do dialup users.  Less than 1% are still on dialup.  

                    I've got to wonder how many of the clients reporting IE6 aren't scripted bots though.

                    ---
                    Toyota: Proof US Union Labor Still Does it Better

                    by VelvetElvis on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:37:43 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't know. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Odysseus

                    I think you have to expect business IT departments to be awfully conservative in this way. Microsoft bears a great deal of the blame for continuing to ship IE6 on consumer and business systems, well beyond the point they could have EOLed it and put IE7 as the minimum version available on XP systems. Granted, that doesn't prevent businesses from forcing older versions of the browser upon employees, but it would have helped greatly to curtail what became roughly a decade of majority non-standards-compliant browser usage on the web.

                    ---

          •  Error correct - rechecked IE9 numbers (0+ / 0-)

            the numbers are actually

            94% HTML5 compliant, 97% CSS3 compliant, 100% SVG1.1 2nd edition compliant, 99% Javascript compliant, 96% DOM compliant and 95% ACID 3 compliant.

            System requirements

            System RequirementsInternet Explorer Platform Preview requires Windows 7 (x86 or x64) or Windows Vista SP2 (x86 or x64).

            For Vista users, Windows Internet Explorer 8. If you’re not already running Internet Explorer 8, download and install it.

            Also you need a good video card with IE 9 since it uses hardware and software video acceleration.

            •  Meh. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Odysseus, esquimaux

              Really, at this point, 95% ACID3 conformance is not that impressive. There's no excuse not to be at 100% with the rest of the pack these days.

              Whose numbers are those, anyway? How can you be 94% or 97% compliant with a standard that's still in the draft stages?

              Finally, if you actually need a good video card to get decent performance, that's just pathetic coding on Microsoft's part (or a deal with AMD and nVidia).

              Formerly known as Jyrinx.

              “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” ― Emma Goldman

              by Code Monkey on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:15:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No other browser even comes close to ACID 3 (0+ / 0-)

                Compliance. IE9 is 95%.. FF is what 36% ACID 3 compliance? Not sure, the system I am at doesn't have FF installed currently.

                Take the test yourself.

                ACID 3 Test

                after test, hold Shift and click the letter A in the test applet at the top to see a list of failures.

              •  P.S. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                linkage

                The Video Card statement I made is for those who still have archiaic systems that are pushing Vista or Win 7 at the low end of the spectrum.. Core 2 E6600 and faster CPU will give decent framerates on software rendering at about 35-40 FPS.

                However most people should have the equivalent of an NVidia 8600 GS on their system now days as a standard. Any card matching or faster than the NVidia 8600 GS will render framerates at 60 FPS or more with a Core 2 onboard. If you have a Core 2 quad, even better, but enough of historical Intel CPUs.. if you get into modern times, any of the i series Intel chips will do wonders.. the i3, i5 or i7.

                But the core of the issue is having a modern computer system. Anything purchased in the last year that has a CPU that is more advanced than a Pentium IV DUO (a Core 2 series or better) should have decent FPS in the IE 9 browser.

                •  Uh, yeah. You can't code only for systems (7+ / 0-)

                  bought in the last year. Remember, only last year did people start dumping support for IE6. It was already crazy-obsolete.

                  Plus, lots of low-end systems have cheap, shitty on-board video because tons of people just want to surf the Web. So those people won't be upgrading.

                  Remember, if even just 5-10% of Web users are running IE8, most companies needing Web sites built will assert that IE8 support is mandatory and therefore IE9 might as well not exist.

                  Formerly known as Jyrinx.

                  “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” ― Emma Goldman

                  by Code Monkey on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:45:18 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  The testing numbers come from (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                linkage

                W3C as well as the other standards testing sites. If you go to

                IE9 Test Drive

                The links to the standards testing pages are at the bottom.. MS is working directly with these companies and web developers.

                MS with IE9 is back at the top of browsers IMHO.

                •  *shrug* We'll see. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  dzog

                  Remember, by the time IE9 comes out, we'll probably have a new Chrome and a new Firefox as well (Safari just got an upgrade, so it'll be longer presumably).

                  Formerly known as Jyrinx.

                  “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” ― Emma Goldman

                  by Code Monkey on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:50:59 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Indeed. Chrome 6 has already been locked down (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    dzog, Code Monkey

                    in terms of features.  And Google's planning to try and release an updated version every 6 weeks -link.  Not sure about FireFox.

                    Not that release rate necessarily has anything to do with rate of browser improvement over the long term.  Chrome is still the least mature browser in a lot of ways, too (Note: I'm not bashing Chrome, but it has a lot of things that need work - like the download manager, which, last I checked, didn't support resuming).

                    •  Yeah. My only point about releases (0+ / 0-)

                      is that you shouldn't compare tomorrow's IE to today's FireFox.

                      (And yeah, Chrome's still the young'un of the bunch. But I am a fan nonetheless :-) )

                      Formerly known as Jyrinx.

                      “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” ― Emma Goldman

                      by Code Monkey on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 05:00:51 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  FireFox is O/S independent (0+ / 0-)

              This is an important open source feature that nobody has mentioned. You can run it under Windows, Linux or a Mac. That means it's free with no strings attached. IE is not free if you have to pay Microsoft to run it.

              For a different perspective see my diary Google Verizon Announce Terms of Deal

      •  Good Move (15+ / 0-)

        Because you KNOW Microsoft is all about everything being Free & Transparent.

      •  yes (8+ / 0-)

        let's switch from google to microsoft, because they are so much better

    •  Suddenly MicroSoft is your darling? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joe m, pgm 01

      What do you know of Google's history? Of Microsoft's? Have you tracked Microsoft's plans for the Internet and their constant attempts to take it private over the past two decades ? Are you aware of the largely successful struggle of the Open Source community, including Google, against this? I doubt it. No you just bought some half-bake analysis from people that don't know what they are talking about and you rush to make Bill Gates richer.

      For a different view, see my diary.

  •  How many times do we have to (16+ / 0-)

    scream at our congress critters we want more public access of "the publics airwaves'? I've signed the petitions, called my rep (not that it does any good, he still takes money from the telecoms) and screamed and jumped up & down? What is it going to take to get thru to the people in D.C?

    "It is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize" - Henry David Thoreau

    by blueoregon on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 12:33:01 PM PDT

    •  We Need To Do What Norway Did (15+ / 0-)

      Companies were starting to wire fiber into homes. The government said yeah, if you want to run in one wire great. But you are already there so if you run in several wires and give open access to any company that wants to use them, we'll give you a huge tax credit for each house you install.

      As you might guess they laid in extra fiber. Now I realize Norway is a lot smaller then the US, but other nations have figured out how to get fiber into homes.

      We ought to be able to figure something out here. And IMHO fiber directly into our homes would be a "game" changer. There is literally no telling what services might be offered.

      "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

      by webranding on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 12:45:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I can't recall which European country it was, (7+ / 0-)

        but one has made it so that companies can install wires, but everyone has to be able to use them.  So in that country, the average customer pays about $20 a month for cable tv with all the channels, internet, and phone.

        Compare that to what Comcast charges.

        My comments may not be used for any purpose without explicit permission.

        by cai on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 12:59:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  A partnership with two towns, (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus, mmacdDE, wsexson

        one in which I live, installed fiber into every neighborhood within the cities' limits. The towns now own the fiber-optics network as a public utility, and are charging monthly fees that stay local. And the service is better than any utility I've ever used.

        This was a great idea from the start, and it still is.

        www.minetfiber.com

    •  Different people in D.C.?--n/m (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dunvegan, linkage

      "Americans are a wonderful people: They will always do the right thing--after exhausting every other possible alternative."--Winston Churchill

      by keikekaze on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:39:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why will the "wireline" Internet be irrelevant (20+ / 0-)

    in a few years??? Fiber optics is far more powerful in terms of information-carrying capacity than any wireless technology advanced much beyond the dream stage . .  

    •  Wireline isn't going to be replaced for a long (8+ / 0-)

      long time.

    •  That's what I was wondering too. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      linkage, alba, mconvente

      I, for one, am not going to dump my desktop in favor of a iphone.

      "With all this manure around, there has to be a pony somewhere!" - Count Piotr Vorkosigan

      by jrooth on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:26:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  wireline is not going away (0+ / 0-)

        Verizon FIOS is gaining in relevance.

        Google's future is about location-based services which is conducive to wireLESS.

        That is why Google wants a tier for wireless.

        "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

        by shrike on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:40:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well OK ... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          linkage, dzog

          but that's a rather different thing than the diarist's contention that wireless is "the entire future of the Internet."

          I'm not defending what they're trying to do, but wouldn't the existence of net-neutral high speed wired access put some amount of market pressure on wireless to be neutral as well?  

          "With all this manure around, there has to be a pony somewhere!" - Count Piotr Vorkosigan

          by jrooth on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:55:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But Wireless is not Landline! (0+ / 0-)

            Please understand some 'technical' realities. Wireless is a finite resource. To again quote a poster on Slashdot, where they know a thing or two about the technology:

            The bandwidth available for wireless transmission is determined by the range of frequencies available, divided by the number of users on that band. It's a FIXED amount. The FCC's not going to widen it just because, there are too many considerations for it.

            You can only achieve a given data speed over wifi. We've improved it over time. But there is a physical limit for reliability of the signal, and that's why wireless is a different story. With wired (or land-based into wifi hotspots) you can just lay more lines in parallel, add a separate color laser to your fiber, etc. which makes it feasible to upgrade and widen the bandwidth. When you have an easily maintainable infrastructure, you don't mind letting it be used freely without priority restrictions.

            Now pictures this: if wireless providers went all net neutral as per your calls, then a phone call would have the same priority as an app downloading updates in the background. Do you know you're going to always have good enough reception to guarantee call quality? Or are OS/firmware updates not more important than that stupid youtube of a dog who can't get up?

            The point is that for wireless, there is a need to prioritize bandwidth, and because it's a fixed bandwidth, if you want priority over something else, you can't just claim it like you do on a landline network.

  •  Signed, tipped, rec'd (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nicolemm, 4Freedom

    I'm very disappointed in Google, and I'm not sure if I'm ever going to use it again.

    TEABAGGER=Totally Enraged About Blacks And Gays Getting Equal Rights.

    by Mike Peterson on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 12:43:22 PM PDT

  •  while I share your concern (10+ / 0-)

    I have to seriously question your contention that the "wired" internet is on it's last legs.

    I don't know about you, but I see no need to have wireless access for my home, for example.  Where is the advantage, given that it would cost just as much, if not more, probably be slower, and most likely have restrictions that a wired connection does not.

    Maybe those problems won't be problems in a few years, but I certainly don't see wired connections going away any time in the foreseeable future.

    •  I just got wireless at home (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Kresnik, cai

      It's just as fast, cheaper, and I get an air card I can take with me around the country when I travel. It's definitely where service is going.

      •  I know some big cities (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mconvente, greengemini

        have wireless internet companies, but that's mainly because of population density.  I'm not sure that would be very feasible in even moderate size cities, to say nothing about rural areas.

        And I still have doubts about it being a serious competitor for wired connections.

      •  also, this begs the question (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus

        and I don't know if this is discussed as part of the guidelines somewhere, or if this already has an answer but...

        If you "subscribe" to what is essentially a wifi connection as your home internet, does that constitute a wired connection or not?  I could actually see the argument going both ways since I can see people legitimately making the argument that wifi isn't truly wireless.

        So how is wireless defined?  Basically internet you get via a mobile service (ie bounced off towers) or is it "your internet comes into your house by some means other than a physical line laid into your residence"  The question would also apply to those who get internet via satellite too I would think.

      •  When you say "Wireless" do you mean: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus

        A) The telecom company came to your house, installed a DSL or Cable or FiOS line, and then put a Wireless Access Point or Wireless router for your in-house computers? If so, then this is still a wired connection.

        B) You're getting your connection over 4G LTE or WiMax?

      •  You are talking about end-user transmission. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus

        Most of the Internet is wired and will remain so. How does your wireless hub receive Internet transmissions from your service provider? Is it beamed into your house or your workplace from low Earth orbit? No; most likely, its connected to a hardwired cable of some sort.

        ---

    •  Not to mention... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wader

      ...the likes of Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Qwest, etc. aren't likely to let wired Internet service go away anytime soon.

      So many stupid people in the world, and me with only two fists.

      by phenry on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:17:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not for years. (0+ / 0-)

      I can imagine them going away, but not for a long time.

      Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

      by Drew J Jones on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 02:26:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Did you come up with the Google is Evil idea? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wader, Mike Peterson

    It goes well with past petitions that the President has a loser mentality, Bennett is a hero, Public Option is the damsel in distress! I'll look around some more, this is the first I've heard of the Verizon/Google deal. Your basically section didn't really explain much to me, although you have more information than moveon's petition. Anyone have some other links/info?

    Elect more and better democrats
    Obama did more for the public option than anyone here.

    by CornSyrupAwareness on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 12:44:30 PM PDT

  •  I think online petitions are useless. (3+ / 0-)

    But you convinced me. I signed.

  •  Not to be a total jerk (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    esquimaux, James Kresnik, greengemini

    But take off the rose-colored glasses.  Google is a multi-billion dollar global corporation that stamps on privacy, competition, and now the very basic freedom of the Internet, all the while espousing lots of PR speak about being "open" to engender enough goodwill to get away with it.

    This proposal is the same old song-and-dance -- talk about being open with the right hand (let's police the wired Internet!) while being as evil/nefarious as possible with the left (just don't police that wireless Net that's the future of everything.  Oh, and we want to be able to create private Internets as well that only people we like can use).

    Ultimately, all they care about is the best way to collect data on you so they can sell ads that target you.  

    All of that said, I agree whole-heartedly regarding net-neutrality (as well as your analysis of their proposal).

  •  Telling a corporation not to be evil (6+ / 0-)

    is like telling a cat not to be a carnivore.  

    No matter how cute and endearing, they are hardwired to pounce and take advantage of any "killing" available, whether that be a literal killing of an animal smaller than themselves or a cash "killing".  Or killing off a public good in order to slice and dice it for maximum private gain.

    But oh, noes, we can't advocate SOCIALISM because that's BAD.  Ronnie said so.  And I'm pretty sure Jesus hated socialists because they took profit-making opportunities away from his friends the moneylenders.

  •  signed (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    4Freedom

    Thanks for bringing this to dailykos

    you cant fool all of the people all of the time unless they watch fox news

    by eeff on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 12:58:09 PM PDT

  •  Despicable. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, 4Freedom

    Thanks for posting this. Google will be hearing from me.

  •  Yes, but (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cartwrightdale, jrooth

    if the Internet's future is 100% wireless, then we will all surely be cooked in an inescapable web of Ghz microwaves.

    Not happy.

    Let me get this right: The "Constitution Party" wants to eliminate an Amendment?!

    by DavidHeart on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:03:45 PM PDT

  •  I think people are mostly still going to be wired (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    myboo, greengemini

    in their homes.

    I don't think there is any chance that we go wireless across the nations as the primary access to the internet in one's home.

    I have a wireless router of course, but I'm still connected to cable, and most people will continue to have cable of some sort, that business isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

    I don't agree with any net neutrality mucking around, but I don't think it the case that the near future is all-wireless.

    •  wrong (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      linkage, James Kresnik

      sure as hell going wireless. Considering the maintenance expenses of to-the-door wire, and new over the air technologies that can carry hundreds of megabits per second of data, it's all going wireless.

      Clear already offers a home and away broadband package for $55 a month. Rural, Urban, all of it is going wireless.

      •  sure all sorts of folks offer wireless (0+ / 0-)

        but when most folks can get it through their cable company, and last time I checked, cable tv isn't going wireless anytime soon, then I don't think they are going to go away from hardwire anytime soon.

        Perhaps the internet only folks might, but the cable companies make a lot of money from internet service, and they can bulk it together with cable to undercut the cost of others.

        (not to mention that one of the secrets of internet through cable is that basic cable comes through the lines for free in many situations when you order the internet. Not that I condone folks taking advantage of that (I personally use sat tv) but its another advantage.)

        So in short, it is not "all" going wireless.

  •  The Wireline Internet will not be irrelevant in a (6+ / 0-)

    few years as the diarist suggests. Wireless may takeover the 'last mile' of the data's travel to you. But let's not confuse that with the trip that a data packet of say my doc Vietnam: American Holocaust from a Google Video server in the U.S. to and iPhone in Hanoi is wireline and will be wireline for the foreseeable future. So this is an important agreement and a partial victory for 'Net Neutrality.

    See more at my diary: Google Verizon Accounts Terms of Deal

    •  the wireless/wireline distinction in the agreemen (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      linkage, James Kresnik

      is not about the backbone. It is about the last mile, as you call it. Of course, the terabyte per second backbone is not going wireless. And that's not what they are saying.

      It is "wireless services". Nobody says the end to end channel has to be wireless, because guess what, once the signal reaches my antenna, it is not wireless any more. Does that count?

  •  epic fail: whoever says that.... (29+ / 0-)

    .... "the old wireline internet ... will be irrelevant in a few years" is so full of shit that you should be able to smell it from where you're sitting.

    Telephone switching systems engineer here, speaking from > 25 years in the industry.

    Do you ever wonder why the public tolerated the destruction of the old urban rail systems?   Look closer, you're seeing it happen again.

    When automobiles became affordable by the masses, they were considered a liberating technology: personal transportation freed of the "tyranny" of "old fashioned, clunky" rail systems.  An automobile was yours, it was a symbol of being modern and up-to-date, it was sexy and it was fast.  

    So people didn't much give a shit when the auto makers and the oil companies teamed up to buy out all the urban rail systems and rip the rails right out of the ground.  

    Just like some people don't seem to give a shit today when the wireless carriers gloat over ripping up all the copper wires that have been the backbone of our nation's communications networks for well over a century.  

    Try calling 9-1-1 from a landline and see how fast the dispatcher has your address.  Try it from a cellphone and see what happens.  Or if you don't want to get in trouble for making needless 9-1-1 calls, ask any local cop.  

    Try using a wireless device of any kind during a lengthy power failure.   Somewhere between 4 - 8 hours after the blackout begins, the cell towers start blinking out as their on-site batteries run down.   That doesn't happen to landlines (aside from those nasty "bundled" services that are delivered over the cable TV system) because the telco central office is backed up with a battery that's good for three days and a diesel generator with a month's supply of fuel on site.

    The bottom line is, neither is a substitute for the other.

    An integrated transportation system includes both automobiles and rail.  An integrated communications system includes both wireless and landline.  

    There is only so much electromagnetic spectrum that is even physically suitable for personal mobile communications.  If we rip up the wires, what's going to happen to that is analogous to what happened to the roads in the absence of rail.  

    Take a look at some photos of commuter gridlock, if you don't have the good fortune to have to drive in it every day.  

    That's the present of transportation without adequate rail, and that is the future of communications without wireline.  

    Mark my words.  

    •  and one more thing: Google went evil... (20+ / 0-)

      .... the day they decided to be the biggest intel collector (read: surveillance system) this side of Fort Meade (NSA).  

      They scan your mail for keywords.

      They scan your Google Voice calls for keywords.

      They have voice recognition and use it on your "voicemail to text" service.

      Do you know what emotion recognition is?  If not, you'd better find out.  

      And at present, they say that "all they do" with all of that information, which no doubt includes your voiceprint as well, is use it to "serve you" with contextual advertising.

      How'd you like contextual ads to pop up in the middle of your phone calls?

      More to the point, if they can do that, they can do quite a bit more, compiling digital dossiers on you that include the most intimate details of your personal life.  That information becomes part of the invisible backside of your credit report: bought and sold and traded by private companies whose primary interest is to squeeze money out of you.  

      Some day you may find yourself unable to get a job, buy a house, or even rent an apartment, because of something you said over the phone or in email.  

      Mark my words, again.  

    •  agree 100% (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fcvaguy, G2geek, stagemom, linkage, Deep Texan

      People are being "sold" on the notion that crappy bandwidth, shitty coverage, etc. are all "features" of having your connection wirelessly.. through a crappy small device, no less.

      WiMax, the supposed future in wireless finally arrives in the form of Clear.. with customers howling about the bad service and slow connection speeds.

      So, no thanks.. keep your closed wireless networks.. The clueless millions with iPhones, one of the most closed systems to ever exist, are probably the loudest ones crying for "net neutrality".. it would be funny were it not pathetic.

      "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

      by Skeptical Bastard on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:43:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  heh, excellent points. (0+ / 0-)

        Those who are howling for Net Neutrality while using closed devices on closed networks, are shooting themselves in the foot.

        Compare to the landline network, which is totally open: you can connect anything you darn well please to it, all the specs are published, etc.

        Excellent point, and frankly I'm shocked I didn't think of it myself!:-)

        Thing is though, I really do believe that an integrated approach is a both/and rather than an either/or.    Use wireless devices while on the road, use wired devices when at home or at the office.  

        You wouldn't want the seat in your car to be like the chair in your dining room, and you wouldn't want the chair in your dining room to be like the seat in your car.   A living room chair makes a lousy car seat, and the bucket seat in a car makes a lousy living room chair.  Each in its correct application is good; either of them shoe-horned into an inappropriate role is a pain in the butt.  

    •  Getting harder and harder to find pay phones (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, G2geek, linkage

      I've never owned a cell phone.  My mobile telephony system is to make sure I have a few quarters so I can use a pay phone.  Costs me about $1 a year for the few mobile calls I need to make.  Pay phones do still exist, but they're getting harder to find.

      Big Joe Helton: "I pay Plenty."
      Chico Marx: "Well, then we're Plenty Tough."

      by Caelian on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 02:50:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Me too. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Caelian

        On every one of my client's sites, the dialtone has my name on it because that's what I do.   I'd sooner not talk while driving because that's a DUI-equivalent.   And on the rare occasions when I need to make calls other than from client sites or home, I can cough up a couple of bucks to use an MCI card if I don't have the coinage on me.

        When I move to the rural parts, I'll get a cellphone because the distances are sufficiently large that it's necessary for safety purposes.  But I'll still be following my basic rule about using wireless when away from home, and using landline while at home or office.

        One can make choices about technology, but to judge from what some people around here are saying, they appear to have no ability to choose, and like it that way.  

  •  And you can't count on congress or the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    esquimaux, James Kresnik

    Administration to stop this deal, they've all been corrupted with MONEY. God help us all.

  •  my aussie friend reckons google is CIA (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    esquimaux

    Progressives will lose all major messaging battles until they picket the limbaugh/hannity megastations and boycott those stations' local sponsors.

    by certainot on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:16:49 PM PDT

  •  this part scared me... (0+ / 0-)

    Socially, Politically, and Culturally Conscious Videos: Sum of Change

    by SumOfChange on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:22:06 PM PDT

  •  "Don't be evil" is branding... (4+ / 0-)

    Just like Fox is "fair and balanced".

    What the "holding feet to the fire" folks are doing isn't simply cutting off their nose to spite their face - it's cutting off their head to spite their face.

    by Jonze on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:22:09 PM PDT

  •  More and more confused (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus, nicolemm, J Royce, Tommymac

    I am just becoming more and more confused about the decisions people in power are making, whether it is Obama not appointing Elizabeth Warren or Erik Schmitt completely selling out his own company to please a bunch of decrepid old technology companies.  It just makes no sense - even as a panic move it makes no sense.  With Obama you can say he is insulated.  But Erik Schmitt was there from the beginning.  This is not even going to make him more money.  It will destroy his company and create an enormous amount of morale problems.  WTF

  •  Most egregious misuse of "breaking" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wader

    all year. My e-mail box is filled up with e-mails about this which have been arriving for the last four or five days. I'm actually amazed you're so late on this.

    De-orangify Congress: Justin Coussoule for Oh-08 http://www.coussouleforcongress.com/

    by anastasia p on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:27:07 PM PDT

    •  I think he's breaking with Google's public (0+ / 0-)

      response, but agree that it's highly misleading - the initial reports have been circulating for days.

      And, the policy document just published by Google actually clarifies their intentions, taking some false rumours away while adding unique focus to wireless broadband.  Not highlighted here, though.

      "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

      by wader on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:40:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  this would be a really dumb move by google (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nicolemm

    something feels like there is not the whole story being posted.  Google makes money the more the internet is used as a whole so why would they shoot themselves in the foot, especially when they don't have any need to?  And if you watch how fickle people are with things like myspace and it going poof within a year you have to wonder why they would want any artificial barriers to people getting to their products.  It defies logic.

    •  They're fencing off their property. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tommymac

      From their perspective, a fully open internet is a breeding ground for future competition. Losing money is evil.

      Is it impolite to say that things are f*cked up? Because honestly man, s*it is really f*cked up. -autoegocrat

      by James Kresnik on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 02:16:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  from others (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LordMike, rainmanjr, alba

        it looks like Google wants to put container data centers locally at verizon locations so they don't have to send data over the back bone for Google searches.  Not quite the same thing as an attack on Net Neutrality.  Google makes money the more the internet is used so it does not make sense for them to do anything to artificially limit its use.

        •  Now about the rest of that deal: (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          notrouble, Tommymac

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

          What Google and Verizon are proposing is fake Net Neutrality. You can read their framework for yourself here or go here to see Google twisting itself in knots about this suddenly "thorny issue." But here are the basics of what the two companies are proposing:

          1. Under their proposal, there would be no Net Neutrality on wireless networks -- meaning anything goes, from blocking websites and applications to pay-for-priority treatment.
          1. Their proposed standard for "non-discrimination" on wired networks is so weak that actions like Comcast's widely denounced blocking of BitTorrent would be allowed.
          1. The deal would let ISPs like Verizon -- instead of Internet users like you -- decide which applications deserve the best quality of service. That's not the way the Internet has ever worked, and it threatens to close the door on tomorrow's innovative applications. (If RealPlayer had been favored a few years ago, would we ever have gotten YouTube?)
          1. The deal would allow ISPs to effectively split the Internet into "two pipes" -- one of which would be reserved for "managed services," a pay-for-play platform for content and applications. This is the proverbial toll road on the information superhighway, a fast lane reserved for the select few, while the rest of us are stuck on the cyber-equivalent of a winding dirt road.
          1. The pact proposes to turn the Federal Communications Commission into a toothless watchdog, left fruitlessly chasing consumer complaints but unable to make rules of its own. Instead, it would leave it up to unaccountable (and almost surely industry-controlled) third parties to decide what the rules should be.

          The implication is that Google effectively 'cut and ran' from openly defending net neutrality to get a favorable business arrangement from Verizon. Doesn't sound so innocuous, does it?

          Is it impolite to say that things are f*cked up? Because honestly man, s*it is really f*cked up. -autoegocrat

          by James Kresnik on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 06:15:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  This may not be as bad as thought (0+ / 0-)

    Because if I can get useful information on my desktop, and can only get censored information on my cell phone or laptop, I'll use my desktop.

    And so will most people.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:27:50 PM PDT

  •  Fundamentally, Google is just a search engine (0+ / 0-)

    --they got out ahead of the market and use that leverage.

    Deprive them of it.

    There are others.

    www.dogpile.com -- for example.

    "Be just and good." John Adams to Thomas Jefferson

    by ogre on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:30:48 PM PDT

  •  They want to be rich (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Bohemian Rebel

    and that green color has blinded them to fine details like what's best for the world.

    Truth forever on the scaffold, wrong forever on the throne. - James Russell Lowell

    by Deep Harm on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:40:03 PM PDT

  •  I'm sad. I really want a Droid X. (0+ / 0-)

    To use with my Verizon wireless account...

  •  I sold my stock (7+ / 0-)

    which I purchased in the belief that I'd have a good chance of investing in a company that may well "do no wrong".

    Just proves that a corporation which is too big to fail is too big to be ethical.

    I am NOT happy.

    This is America. Huge multinationals choose our political officials here.

    by thenekkidtruth on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:42:47 PM PDT

  •  Where is the money? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JT88, alba

    How is this a "deal" and not just a policy recommendation?

    You're being awful shrill and I can't see anything here that makes me give up cable/fiber, ever. Maybe you've been reading too much doom and gloom about your iPhone?

  •  Or maybe google knows (0+ / 0-)

    that net neutrality is a losing battle, that the corps are gunna win over congress, and they're setting themselves up. I wouldn't consider it evil, but a smart business move. Flame on

    Happiness in Alaska is -50

    by Craig Burnham on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:43:11 PM PDT

    •  Net Neutrality is a winning battle (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rainmanjr

      now that people have sifted through some of this it looks like Google wants to plug their container data centers locally into verizon locations so they don't have to send the data over the backbone.  Not sure that this has been interpreted correctly as Google attacking Net Neutrality if that is all this deal is.

  •  They are trying to neuter the FCC (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ivote2004, Tommymac, ariseatex

    The FCC would enforce the consumer protection and nondiscrimination requirements through case-by-case adjudication, but would have no
    rulemaking authority with respect to those provisions.

    Is there any other way to read that sentence?

  •  just one more way (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tommymac

    to screw the little guy and make him pay more.

    "The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die."

    by rscopes on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:46:32 PM PDT

  •  how are they defining their terms? (0+ / 0-)

    because that is key.

    Do routers count as wired or not?

  •  I think Google's love affair with... (11+ / 0-)

    Verizon centers on the profitability with Android.  Google is afraid to lose that connection, since Android becomes the gateway OS to Google's wireless endeavors.  

    And of course, our government will once again become pliable to the demands of big business, allow them to write the new law, and then sell this load of bullshit to Americans.  No one in Congress (with the exception of Sen. Franken) seems to know what's going on, or really care.  

    It's the same shit every time across any industry, whether it be health care, banking, defense, the environment, or education:  Big business wants something very badly so they send out loads of money and lobbyists, while the people are made to suffer  greater iniquities.  

    Goddamn it.  

  •  They are afraid of the technology (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rainmanjr

    They  are trying to control the information flow. But no sweat. As soon as they control one thing, some genius will come up with a new way of overriding their control...it is the way the world works...

  •  Hey Google! In case you were wondering.... (0+ / 0-)

    ... here's proof positive that no good deed goes unpunished.  Some of us do get it though..

  •  Going by the replies, I don't think many people (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joe m, JT88, Catte Nappe, alba

    actually read the article and are just judging this based on the diary.

    If people would actually put down the torches and pitchforks long enough to read the actual policies rather than the summarized ones in this article, you'd see that what they're proposing is actually gasp good.

  •  Google lied about talking to Verizon (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kalmoth, Detroit Mark, Tommymac

    When this was first reported over the weekend, Google issued a denial. Why should anyone believe Google is anything but a skunk that is not to be believed?

    •  Ify ou actually read the "denial" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Buffalo Girl, BoxNDox

      It says they did not have any conversations about paying for traffic, as assumed by the NYT's article.

      Jesus christ, maybe for once the duck is actually a duck. Stop trying to read between the lines on everything.

    •  Google's entire business model depends on net (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      defluxion10, kalmoth

      neutrality, and not in a way that Verizon alone can provide.

      This whole idea is just stupid.

      ---
      Toyota: Proof US Union Labor Still Does it Better

      by VelvetElvis on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:05:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  it really doesn't (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus

        Google is ridiculously profitable and keeping small competitors away from Google TV is almost certainly worth the money they are going to end up spending on this.  Also keep in mind that Google is flirting with residential broadband so they are, to a certain extent, on both sides of this issue.

        Full Disclosure: I work with an OTT startup that is materially impacted by whatever happens with net neutrality.

    •  That's not denying the conversation (0+ / 0-)

      It's denying the assuemd content of the conversation

      "I want to apologize for that misconstrued misconstruction." Rep Joe Barton

      by Catte Nappe on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 05:18:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Because... (0+ / 0-)

      Google carefully manages their public reputation. Nothing is more effective than saying one thing and doing the exact opposite. You can already see a legion of Google fans defending it.  Well it's not THAT bad... well it was going to happen sooner or later. At least it was Google took my Internet virginity away.

  •  You're wrong about verizon (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cappy, kalmoth, alba, BoxNDox

    It's hard to argue a point when your premise is completely incorrect. Verizon is not an old decrepit company.

    They have the most advanced ethernet service available in the US. It's state of the art for network engineering. They're very advanced and very smart.

    By underestimating them you put them at the advantage.

  •  i thought getting in bed with China (0+ / 0-)

    was their Rubicon of Evil.

    This is just confirmation of what we already knew.

  •  And to think these fuckers DENIED it (4+ / 0-)

    just a few days ago, when it was announced they were going to go into cahoots with Verizon Wireless to kill net neutrality for their customers.

    DENIED IT!

    And now those lying bastards are just doing it.

    FUCK THEM!

    When this contract on my droid is up...I'm dumping this piece of shit for something a little less ... BUSHY.

  •  where does MSFT stand? could be good advertising (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jethrock

    Material for them to capitalize on.

    •  They've refused to take a position recently (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Kresnik

      after being original supporters of Net Neutrality.

      However, Microsoft is not well known for their ethical business practices.

      But I would temporarily start using Bing as opposed to Google. If enough people did it may get Google to switch back to their original position if they saw one of their major competitors get a boon in business and traffic due to this.

      I'll be using exalead as much as possible.

      I use Safari... so I switched the auto search to Bing as opposed to Google. If it allow exalead I would switch to that.

      "Trying to hold back the revision of history is always a good thing." -- Peter Christopherson

      by jethrock on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 03:24:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well. I just changed my primary search engine (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    defluxion10

    from Google.

    Yahoo, Microsoft's Bing, aren't much better as far as ethics go.

    I'll be using exalead as much as possible. Unless, I discover their stance on Net Neutrality is worse than Google's.

    Then I guess I'm screwed. Anyone have any suggestion for a better search engine?

    "Trying to hold back the revision of history is always a good thing." -- Peter Christopherson

    by jethrock on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 03:15:02 PM PDT

  •  Google denied this within hours of the first (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BoxNDox

    allegation.

    FWIW.

    It's largely internet rumor at this point.

    I don't buy it.

    Too much of their business model depends on net neutrality to survive.

     

    ---
    Toyota: Proof US Union Labor Still Does it Better

    by VelvetElvis on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 03:57:51 PM PDT

  •  Just some examples of what could happen... (7+ / 0-)

    Want to view that new viral YouTube video? $.50 please

    Want to search for something using Google? Oh wait, sorry, you aren't signed up for our premium service. You now have to watch a 45 second advertisement.

    Enjoying that 1080p Hi Def video someone posted on YouTube? Well not anymore, unless you have Verizon/Google's premium plan. Until then its nothing but 360p for you.

    Run a small business? You won't for long! Corporations and big business will be able to buy premium placement on Google searches. Effectively directing people to their services rather than yours.

    The Internet is simply too big of a communications tool for a corporation to control. This isn't cool.

  •  Boycott Ze Google (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lightfoot, Tommymac

    Just removed google as my homepage, was the first page displayed when I opened firefox. Now it's Yahoo, been always meaning to check it out.

    Also going to open a yahoo email. Doesn't really matter which provider I get sent spam to anyway.

    As for google :( you disappointed me son. Just when I thought my loathing of corporations was exclusive to banks/the financial industry, oil corporations, all the mainstream media, weapons companies, coca cola, any slave labor clothes retailers and fast food companies along comes Google and dashes my hopes that not all companies are scum sucking parasites that might now and again do the right thing.

    F*ck you very much Google just f*uck you.

     

    Non Violence is fine... so long as it works. - Malcolm X

    by Dr Marcos on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 03:58:28 PM PDT

  •  Here's the tweet from Google Public Policy saying (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BoxNDox

    all these allegations are bullshit:

    http://twitter.com/...

    ---
    Toyota: Proof US Union Labor Still Does it Better

    by VelvetElvis on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:03:29 PM PDT

  •  If the admin agrees, another nail in the US (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lightfoot, Tommymac

    economy.

    Typical. After Google made trillions through the use of subsidized or free networks, did not pay anywhere near market value for the access; it now wants to shut the door. Make no mistake about it the internet has been subsidized for the past 35 years by various levels of government and universities. All the beneficiaries have been able to use it at relatively low cost. Particularly Google, which would not have got off the ground without this access. Rather it would have been a bunch of nerds bemoaning lack of funding in a typical nerdvana circle jerk. Shame. Hey at least Microsoft and Oracle have the cojones to be blatantly predatory.

    Boycott them.

    Dump the Google apps - crap, ripoffs, and not secure.

    Beware the man of one book.... ... or "cave ab homine unius libri"... (Cicero)

    by shigeru on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:18:14 PM PDT

  •  signed and donated (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lightfoot

    signed the petitition and donated to help in the fight.
    We must do everything possible to keep this from happening and to stand up for what we claim to believe in

  •  Google contributions pay (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CitizenOfEarth

    Top 5 Contributors to Obama Presidential Campaign

    University of California  $1,591,395
    Goldman Sachs  $994,795
    Harvard University  $854,747
    Microsoft Corp  $833,617
    Google Inc  $803,436

    Contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates.

    Source: OpenSecrets.org

    2010: corporate owned Republicans versus corporate owned Democrats. Vote!

    by anonymous White House source on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:47:22 PM PDT

  •  Didn’t BP Buys Google and Yahoo Search Ter (0+ / 0-)

    Net neutrality has always been largely a myth, more precisely a PR ploy.
    You silly anarchist...

    Nudniks need not apply.

    by killermiller on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:51:09 PM PDT

  •  How to terrify Democrats on Net Neutrality (8+ / 0-)

    As the old saying goes, the most dangerous place in the world is between a politician and a microphone.

    When you call your Congressional representatives (and those who want to be), please ask the following questions:

    Do you want Big Business slowing the traffic to your campaign website?

    Would you be satisfied if the donations page of your website loaded at a snails pace while your opponents page loaded as if it was hosted locally?

    That should get their attention.

  •  Surf, web, pay. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CitizenOfEarth, lightfoot, dclawyer06

    Be a lamb, and stand over there, while we kiss your voice buh-bye. Buh-bye democracy!  Buy-buy!  Gotta love being marginalized. (snark).

    "The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it." - Flannery O'Conner

    by Dixiedemocrat on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 05:10:03 PM PDT

  •  Picking of nit (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stagemom, lightfoot

    decision to cut a deal with Verizon wreaks of either impatience or fear

    You want "reeks" not "wreaks"

    "I want to apologize for that misconstrued misconstruction." Rep Joe Barton

    by Catte Nappe on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 05:13:11 PM PDT

  •  I signed it. n/t (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eddieb061345, lightfoot, Tommymac

    The United States: A wholly owned subsidiary of British Petroleum.

    by Beelzebud on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 05:52:02 PM PDT

  •  Tip'd, rec'd, shared, donated, and signed. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lightfoot, Tommymac

    Here's my "personal note":

    ====================
    The ONE company I thought I could trust to do the right thing, and when you have a chance to stand on the right side of the most important democracy issue of our time, you side with the likes of Verizon?!? For shame!

    Promising Net Neutrality on the dying copper infrastructure is like promising to always allow users to buy token ring cards. It is the most hollow and cynical act I've seen in this long parade of NN cynical acts. At least Comcast was honest!

    Time for you, Google, to step up to the plate and protect the medium, and the users, that made you your millions. And, it's time for the FCC to grow a pair and tell you that YOU are not the regulators -- THEY are, and they intend to protect equal access for all, no matter the medium or the message.
    ====================

    Bruce in Louisville
    Visit me at brucemaples.com

    Follow me on Twitter: @brucewriter

    by bmaples on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 06:15:52 PM PDT

  •  Verizon really screwed the pooch on this... (3+ / 0-)
    The right's arguments that "the government would take over the Internet" were making some waves... after all, it sounded good and people are stupid.  But, now, the public sees two big companies taking over the Internet, they don't like it one bit.  When you see right wingers complaining about this deal (as you can now see on a bunch of sites), you know the tide has turned with the public.  People may not trust the government, but they sure as hell don't like a couple of businesses making a bacroom deal to take away their internet.

    Major mistake by Verizon to go public with this.  Their proposal will not see the light of day.  Maybe that was google's intentions all along.

    DARTH SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
    LANDO REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

    by LordMike on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 06:16:40 PM PDT

  •  Google is a one trick pony (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eddieb061345, Wayneman

    and they know it.  The shotgun approach to developing new revenue streams has not worked well, so I'm guessing that this represents a new approach.

    Always follow the money.

    Die energie der Welt ist constant; die Entropie der welt strebt einem Maximum zu. - Rudolf Clausius, 1865

    by xgy2 on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 06:20:44 PM PDT

  •  Plenty of reason (0+ / 0-)

    There is no reason in  the world for Google, which has made smart investments in the future,to find common ground with Verizon on the issue of Internet openness. None. Zero. Zilch. Today's deal was unneeded, uncalled for, and incompatible with Google's "don't be evil" mantra.

    The reason is $$$$$$$.

    Also, if you believe that Google's "don't be evil" slogan isn't just spin, then you need to pay closer attention.

    "If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities" -- Voltaire

    by Sagebrush Bob on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 06:30:45 PM PDT

  •  Stop using their products (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eddieb061345, defluxion10, jethrock
    If you are upset with Google and its policies, stop using Google Chrome, Gmail, Google search, Google finance. You're just funding their lobbying and political efforts to kill your media freedom.
  •  Rec'd, tipped (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eddieb061345, defluxion10, Tommymac

    signed, donated.

  •  Google should be ashamed of themselves... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eddieb061345, defluxion10, Tommymac

    They forgot that they became an Internet hit because of Net Neutrality? If they continue to push this nonsense I will stop using their services all together. Simple!

    We had 60 seats but acted like we had 5. Now we have 59.

    by jbjowe on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 07:10:38 PM PDT

    •  they are continuing to push net neutrality (0+ / 0-)

      this is a bunch of chicken little nonsense

      They are asking the FCC divide off wireless networks into their own regulatory bracket and still pushing for strong net neutrality for existing fiber based services.

      Think! Google's business model depends on net neutrality to survive! why on earth would they want to do away with it?

       

      ---
      Toyota: Proof US Union Labor Still Does it Better

      by VelvetElvis on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 07:44:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It really doesn't... (0+ / 0-)

        Google has the money to survive net neutrality. Their competition may not. Why should we expect Google to be any less selfish and greedy than any other gigantic company? If they had nothing to gain they wouldn't be wasting their time on it.

        •  google are still the ones pushing net neutrality (0+ / 0-)

          Did you read the full policy piece or just what in this diary?

          Google are still strong proponents of net neutrality for the wired internet which will continue to dominate the bulk of internet traffic for a good long time to come.  Most of the cable that's been laid isn't even in use yet.

          ---
          Toyota: Proof US Union Labor Still Does it Better

          by VelvetElvis on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 11:15:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Their steaaling the Future internet. (0+ / 0-)

            there taking control of what the correctly perceive as the future of the Net and that is wireless. so when you want ot use your Iphone you will depend on the Corporations greed controling you access.

            Disabled Viet Vet ret. My snark is worse than my bite

            by eddieb061345 on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:12:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Bing (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    defluxion10, Tommymac

    I won't be using google, any more.

    "Doing My Part to Piss Off the Religious Right" - A sign held by a 10-year old boy on 9-24-05

    by Timbuk3 on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 07:11:06 PM PDT

    •  Microsoft is no better (0+ / 0-)

      and who you use as a search provider hardly matters anyway.

      ---
      Toyota: Proof US Union Labor Still Does it Better

      by VelvetElvis on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 07:41:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  At least microsoft (0+ / 0-)

        ...isn't making a deal to end net neutrality.

        So, I'm not using google for anything.

        Not that they'll notice, but I'll feel better.

        "Doing My Part to Piss Off the Religious Right" - A sign held by a 10-year old boy on 9-24-05

        by Timbuk3 on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 09:03:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Google isn't making a deal to end NN (0+ / 0-)

          They made a proposal to the FCC along with Verizon which would place strong enforcements on NN in the wired internet space which is and will continue to be the majority of the internet for the next 50 years.  The proposal carved out a special space for wireless service providers which would allow google to offer a number of free services, and even free wireless, to their customers.  It allows them to develop a "web OS" that would compete with microsoft, something they have obviously been working to do for years and expand it into wireless space.  

          ---
          Toyota: Proof US Union Labor Still Does it Better

          by VelvetElvis on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 09:52:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Google shouldn't be making any decisions. (0+ / 0-)

            The corporations should not be taking the lead in any decisions over access to the. It's not their Domain. Their proposals should have little or NO weight. The PUBLIC GOOD should reign supreme.

            Disabled Viet Vet ret. My snark is worse than my bite

            by eddieb061345 on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 08:11:04 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  I was saddened... (0+ / 0-)

    ... when I read about this on slashdot.  Sad day, to say the least.

    The inadequate is the enemy of the necessary.

    by JRandomPoster on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 07:30:33 PM PDT

  •  Fucking Pathetic! (0+ / 0-)

    Now they want to corporatize the Internet aswell! When will the madness end?

  •  Now that I've taken a closer look, it's not bad. (0+ / 0-)

    It brushes off the wireless market to independent providers, which is pretty much keeping with the status quo.

    The agreements fiber is going to die for a long, long time though, and the neutrality agreements for that, other than the walled garden provisions, aren't that bad.

    I don't think google has done us wrong here at all.

    I think this is just a bunch of people going chicken little over affairs they don't understand.

    ---
    Toyota: Proof US Union Labor Still Does it Better

    by VelvetElvis on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 07:40:27 PM PDT

  •  I don't think they give two shits about what... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eddieb061345, sanbernation

    ...is on the net.

    These companies just want to find a way to extract more money out of you for an essential service.

    Capitalism FTW!!

  •  Couldn't have said it better.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eddieb061345

    I used to work for a Verizon subisidiary.  Trust me; all they care about is the money. Why so surprised that they act this way?

    "A Canadian is merely an unarmed American with health care." John Wing

    by marigold on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 08:08:54 PM PDT

  •  google/verizon proposal (0+ / 0-)

    In case this hasn't been posted yet,

    http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.c...

    According to slashdot, there are some good things and some "curious" content.

  •  Ending Monopolies (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus

    The problem with this is the usual one with parts of the economy that lend themselves to natural monopolies. The last mile to the customer is one such natural monopoly.

    We should be fighting to force the government to implement a general plan that takes over all such natural monopolies and runs them in the public interest. This would apply to the last mile of electronic communication (wireline, wireless, roads, rail roads, etc.)

    Then, all companies would be allowed equal access to this infrastructure. This would guarantee that packets would arrive with the same priority regardless of source. It would also eliminate the discrimination between roads and rail lines, between wireline and wireless, and so on.

    The act of fighting for a takeover of the last mile infrastructure will change the rules of engagement over net neutrality and force these companies to go on the defensive. Even if we don't get public takeover of this infrastructure, it will make it very difficult for them to accomplish their goals. They will have to compromise on them to save themselves from having the whole battle go the other way.

    My suggestion is to demand that members of Congress start the process of taking over this infrastructure in the name of the people.

  •  inconvenient truth... (0+ / 0-)

    The Internet is and always has been tiered. Not for political reason, but for technical reasons. And it's a damn good thing too! Why? Because you won't be able to use your VOIP phone service while some a-hole is downloading porn and stealing all the available bandwidth. Without QoS you wouldn't be able to download all those YouTube videos that all the kewl kids are talking about. What is QoS? Quality of Service, and I'm willing to bet every router on the internet is configured using QoS.

    Now, I admit I only had a brief look at the proposal so I'm at a loss what all the fuss is about. Can someone explain to me without waving their arms around and yelling fire, fire!

    New improved bipartisanship! Now comes in a convenient suppository!!! -unbozo

    by Unbozo on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 09:30:04 PM PDT

  •  why does this sound (0+ / 0-)

    like a lot of trumped up hysterics? I'll wait till someone credibly analyzes the content of the agreement before burning Google at the stake.

    Some say we need a third party. I wish we had a second party. -- Jim Hightower

    by joe m on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 09:35:44 PM PDT

  •  signed the petition and commented (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jethrock

    The fact that Google is presenting this proposal jointly with Verizon underlines exactly why this 'transparency' will be worthless. Two corporations that should be competing are instead collaborating. If consumers don't like the terms of one company they won't be able to choose another because every company will be doing business the same way.
    I'm astonished Google would risk its corporate image like this.

  •  i just dumped my chrome browser (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus, jethrock

    and they ask why... I said I support net neutrality. also dumped google earth, google search, google email ,I like their services but gotta go elsewhere now

  •  I'm going to have to diary this tomorrow. (0+ / 0-)

    The sky is not falling.

    Google is not killing network neutrality.

    The future of the free internet is not over.

    Google's business model depends on network neutrality to survive and the bulk of their proposal to the FCC is actually proposing song regulations ensuring network neutrality.

    When you view Google's present technology profile and the wireless media landscape right now (android vs apple) this allows more freedom to innovate, not less.  

    The wired internet (fiber) is going to remain dominant for a long long time.  Right now there is still a ton of "black fiber" out there, fiber optic cable that has been laid but has not been put in use yet because it's not expected to be needed for some time.

    ---
    Toyota: Proof US Union Labor Still Does it Better

    by VelvetElvis on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 10:15:59 PM PDT

  •  They have always lived up to their motto... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus

    dont BE EVIL.

    Because for as long as I can remember the google name, it has always been on the wrong side of everyday peoples interests.

    If this shit keeps up pretty soon, you won't call it the Internet anymore, you will just call it the google... since they own all of it, and run all of it.

    Time to send some more money to the EFF..

    Electronic Frontier Foundation

    It seems everyone in this country is only equal when we fight back and drag their agenda out into the sunlight.

    Thank you for bringing this serious story out to more people. Rec'd with thankfulness.

    GOP motto "Mean and stupid hasn't worked, but it's what we know, so we're sticking to it."

    by Nebraskablue on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 10:23:00 PM PDT

  •  Even worse than it looks... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus, cetylovx

    I work in the broadband industry...

    1. Google's use of the term "public Internet" should raise some major red flags. I won't bother to speculate exactly what type of "private Internet" Google envisions but it's probably going to involve lots of your data and lots of advertisements. It'll be fast though. Much faster than the competition that can't pay to play on wireless. What really defines the public and private Internet? Presence in the local datacenter / headend. Who can afford that? Google, Apple, Comcast, etc. It's a gigantic loop hole.
    1. The reasoning that wireless if fundamentally exempt from fair access is a slippery slope. Any cable ISP can make the same argument. It's a shared medium at the node level much in the same way a cell tower is. On this deal alone Comcast, TWC, etc can make a very strong argument they should be exempt from any future net neutrality rules now that the free market has decided what the rules are going to be.
    1. Notice how Google speaks of "legal content" ? This is your trojan horse to the entertainment industry owning the Internet. Legal files? Full speed. Illegal files? Dial-up speeds.  
    1. It has already been fairly well established that truly anti-competitive tactics on wired broadband would be unacceptable. Comcast throttling bit torrent is about as bad as it got. Google is acting like they just did the Internet a big favor by... trading away a chip we already had.
    1. Back to the "legal content" clause. What if your political discourse gets a little too heated for Verizon? What if some friendly government intelligence agency decides you might be a criminal? Certainly in that case your illegal content can be filtered, throttled, blocked. Forget being a government whistle blower trying to upload some videos to YouTube. (arguably this is slightly far fetched but the language opens the door for it)

    This is probably the single worst crime any company has committed on the Internet since Microsoft attempted their "embrace and extend" techniques back in the late 90s. Google clearly bait and switched us all. This is nothing but a selfish greedy anti-competitive tactic. I understand how business works but don't screw me and tell me you're doing me a favor. That's what really makes me mad. They could have just said "Look, web search ain't what it used to be. This is what we need to do for the future of Google" and I would be fine with it. That's business. Ugh.

  •  what's the rush to sign this (0+ / 0-)

    and get rid of google apps? Isn't it worth investigating the issue further and seeing how things play out?

    •  Haven't you learned anything from the HC debate (0+ / 0-)

      What should we wait for? You know that anything other then NET Neutrality won't be to benefit the people. Time works against stopping them from turning the net into their own personal serfdom.

      Disabled Viet Vet ret. My snark is worse than my bite

      by eddieb061345 on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:02:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Isn't extortion illegal? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus

    The way I understand it, the proposal is to deliberately slow down the web sites of everyone who doesn't pay the carrier(s) a fee. This is nothing more than the old "protection" racket.

    "Nice web site you got there. Shame if anything happened to it."

  •  After trying to figure out the best alternatives (0+ / 0-)

    to Google...

    Here is what I came up with.

    For basic searches for information such as news, articles, etc.

    cuil seems to work pretty well. Except when searching specifically for images or video, it's more tricky.

    exalead has a really nice interface and works well for images, and video.

    yippy works well, and I would recommend it for anyone with kids.

    However, I don't have kids and don't need content filtered out. Apparently there is no way to turn off the filter.

    Ask isn't bad... but I probably won't use it much.

    bing will probably be a last resort for me... Unless they change their stance on Net Neutrality. They've refused to answer direct questions about it recently... so they may have already changed.

    "Trying to hold back the revision of history is always a good thing." -- Peter Christopherson

    by jethrock on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 12:20:46 AM PDT

  •  I found this particularly creepy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus

    Fourth, we're in wild agreement that in this rapidly changing Internet ecosystem, flexibility in government policy is key.

    I don't know how I feel about watching two corporate behemoths getting into "wild agreement" with each other.  I kind of feel like I need to take a shower.

    This is from the Oct 21, 2009 joint statement "Finding common ground on an open internet" by the two CEO's.

    Finding common ground on an open Internet
    Wednesday, October 21, 2009 at 6:15 PM ET
    Posted by Eric Schmidt, Chairman and CEO of Google, and Lowell McAdam, President and CEO of Verizon Wireless

    What they are getting at is that there should be little government regulation and "flexible" enforcement policies.  In other words, like all giant corps, they believe they should be able to do whatever they want.

    What strikes me is that they have pretty much replaced the concept of "net neutrality" with a concept they apparently prefer: "open internet" where consumers supposedly have the "final say" on their experience.  I am still thinking about the implications of that switch.  What is the difference between net neutrality and an open internet?

    I am coming late to this debate and discussion, and am trying to catch up on the issues.  But it does seem to come down to a corporate take-over of the internet, with Google-Verizon preparing for battle with some other corporate giant, who has yet to show itself, by making the first offensive moves.

    In reading some of the comments connected with the Oct 21 2009 statement and the Aug 10, 2010 joint policy proposal  it seems there is a concern that providers, under their prefered scenario, could block or make visibility difficult for sites like wikileaks which may be deemed offensive or inappropriate.

justinb, fly, norm, Tookish, Seth D, RakDaddy, JekyllnHyde, Alumbrados, cdreid, Angie in WA State, tmo, Bill in Portland Maine, Sean Robertson, Odysseus, eugene, baked potato, ogre, dalemac, teacherken, slinkerwink, leftcoast, assyrian64, Adam B, Liberal Thinking, miasmo, DelRPCV, abarefootboy, Raybin, nicolemm, BigOkie, theboz, mattman, janinsanfran, juls, newjeffct, lazbumm, sacrelicious, bread, Sprinkles, superfly, TechBob, dengre, tommurphy, Debby, byteb, LynChi, Emocrat, mlharges, CleverNickName, bramish, byoungbl, KateG, eeff, KevinBondelli, Sandy on Signal, blogswarm, FyodorFish, mataliandy, niemann, Creosote, silence, erinmblair, Addison, opinionated, Justina, Slacker Gal, EricS, cyberKosFan, Einsteinia, susakinovember, eddieb061345, CoolOnion, bluesteel, Pithy Cherub, boadicea, PBnJ, Glic, vmibran, rickpickett, Transmission, roses, pedrito, taonow, ivote2004, puck nc, nargel, Voter123, Fe, jennifree2bme, josephk, Nate Roberts, splashy, Beelzebud, lulusbackintown, Moody Loner, danthrax, Quentin, pat bunny, StuartZ, brainwave, grannyhelen, crackpot, jaywillie, churchylafemme, wilbur, NYFM, dwahzon, defluxion10, Catte Nappe, STOP George, chickeee, Greg in TN, Cliff Talus, RebeccaG, lcrp, Pohjola, Democratic Hawk, Oaktown Girl, side pocket, Curt Matlock, Kitsap River, mungley, tomjones, lyvwyr101, cartwrightdale, J Orygun, midwestmom, greeseyparrot, sawgrass727, Julie Gulden, averageyoungman, nailbender, gradinski chai, joanneleon, fijiancat, bloomer 101, Bluesee, cetylovx, NoMoreLies, Independent Musings, mjd in florida, democracy inaction, sap, truong son traveler, ajsuited, Valtin, RequestedUsername, snacksandpop, stagemom, YucatanMan, Dobber, Laurence Lewis, vigi, ratzo, GUGA, Chaoslillith, cfk, LNK, SaraBeth, Pam from Calif, Frank Palmer, ladybug53, cassidy3, Overseas, bmaples, sunbro, SBandini, inforet, GGAllin, neroden, coolbreeze, dsteffen, Cory Bantic, peacestpete, Ekaterin, SocioSam, Nolan, mrchips46, Alan Arizona, soyinkafan, jiml, Wayneman, reddbierd, SoulCatcher, martini, LeftOverAmerica, Showman, velaski, MissInformation, stef, tarheelblue, myboo, vigilant meerkat, sherlyle, Opakapaka, BlueInARedState, victoria2dc, martyc35, mSnook, fromer, FunkyMonkey, mcartri, Son of a Cat, neecie100, Lefty Coaster, blueoasis, TalkieToaster, MJ via Chicago, eglantine, StrayCat, 4Freedom, Sagebrush Bob, dirtfarmer, doinaheckuvanutjob, murphthesurf, Cenobyte, ilyana, nother lurker, JugOPunch, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, fiddlingnero, The Lighthouse Keeper, Stripe, blueoregon, Compostings, tallmom, airmarc, Statusquomustgo, jjellin, markthshark, Aaa T Tudeattack, NonnyO, AntKat, ammasdarling, Evil Betty, One Pissed Off Liberal, J Royce, pgm 01, lightfoot, Duke S, Haningchadus14, Cat Whisperer, dmh44, yoduuuh do or do not, Michael Connery, edsbrooklyn, FishOutofWater, Mary Mike, Thunder Dreamer, Jimdotz, greenchiledem, dclawyer06, DWG, joyful, aliasalias, Russ Wellen, TK1, Strabo, gatorbot, rainmanjr, Mom2bzs, Sarahkatheryn, mudslide, colorado bob 1, jnhobbs, millwood, Geiiga, uciguy30, number six, LWelsch, Zydekos, keikekaze, Phlogistician, Terra Mystica, Empower Ink, vastman, JDWolverton, mconvente, zerone, sprednxtnd, cindymutti, dadadata, elwior, Satyanand, filby, Akonitum, jamess, mikeconwell, monkeybrainpolitics, Lujane, geomoo, icebergslim, pickandshovel, exMnLiberal, Missys Brother, Jeff Y, noddem, Jacques, o the umanity, James Kresnik, aigeanta, stumo, Stephanie Taylor, allie123, HarpboyAK, priceman, magicsister, dmhlt 66, immigradvocate, papicek, statsone, fayea, dirtdawg, maggiejean, 1BQ, Bule Betawi, Jessivoter, Ripeness Is All, DontTaseMeBro, Neon Vincent, UkieOli, Rick Aucoin, ARS, emboyo, litoralis, The Dead Man, ellieelliott, bridoc, Nebraskablue, Rabbithead, Partisan Progressive, tr GW, VoteAqui, JesseCW, jmknapp53, John Shade, beijingbetty, ZilV, The Liberty of Meat, Corneliusmingus, sanglug, Shelley99, Keith Pickering, Joeytj, IreGyre, Eyz, Kiku, sfarkash, Roxy Hope, Houston Gardener, tote, Enzo Valenzetti, MizKit, Enrika, Edge PA, Leftcandid, Cleopatra, Larsstephens, ruscle, Amber6541, smileycreek, brentbent, angry liberaltarian, marabout40, pyegar, p gorden lippy, TDreamer, foolknot, roadbear, LaughingPlanet, jethrock, GeeBee, Crabby Abbey, angelajean, 2questions, Man from Wasichustan, Eddie L, cordgrass, gsadamb, Lady Libertine, ItsSimpleSimon, SoCalHobbit, Hoopgreen, ThisIsMyTime, DiegoUK, cai, Earth Ling, JRandomPoster, sluggahjells, itswhatson, martini drinking atheist, roystah, MsGrin, Jason Rosenbaum, Floande, DirkFunk, Oh Mary Oh, progdog, tekno2600, Jonze, slice, bicycle Hussein paladin, Colorado is the Shiznit, The Bohemian Rebel, xgy2, FeloniousMonk, moondance, nicethugbert, Kharafina, sixthestate, anyname, poorbuster, BlueJessamine, the national gadfly, BlackQueen40, Bluerall, w1n5t0n, Situational Lefty, gongee, PedalingPete, boomerchick, Haf2Read, marleycat, Cinnamon Rollover, RadicalRoadRat, athena47, KVoimakas, SusanL143, moldyfolky, Prinny Squad, LSmith, worldlotus, corvaire, dr fatman, poliwrangler, Dr Marcos, curtisgrahamduff, mfprtoo, Elana Levin, lincoln deschain, TheRyeChip, Book of Hearts, rscopes, zenox, Nightshade Q, Shaunna Thomas, jaebone, Mike Peterson, PrometheusUnbound, Blue Shift, Colin Curtis, Nancy on Lake Michigan, Monsieur Georges, Dom9000, rtcfrtc, fgsfds, BlueDragon, Free Chicken and Beer, Jasiu, CalliopeIrjaPearl, OldeCountry, BeyondNovember, doublercar, Gay CA Democrat, Bhindmyiis, Eric Nelson, AreDeutz, Ultranaut, olmanwillow, American Idle, 2010ftc

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site