Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google and Verizon In Talks To Prioritize Traffic (Updated)

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the preferred-traffic dept.

Google 410

Nrbelex writes "Google and Verizon are nearing an agreement that could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content's creators are willing to pay for the privilege. Any agreement between Verizon and Google could also upend the efforts of the Federal Communications Commission to assert its authority over broadband service, which was severely restricted by a federal appeals court decision in April. People close to the negotiations who were not authorized to speak publicly about them said an agreement could be reached as soon as next week. If completed, Google, whose Android operating system powers many Verizon wireless phones, would agree not to challenge Verizon's ability to manage its broadband Internet network as it pleased." Update: 08/05 20:03 GMT by T : nr3a1 writes with this informative update excerpted from Engadget: "Google's Public Policy Twitter account just belted out a denial of these claims, straight-up saying that the New York Times 'is wrong.' Here's the full tweet, which certainly makes us feel a bit more at ease. For now. '@NYTimes is wrong. We've not had any convos with VZN about paying for carriage of our traffic. We remain committed to an open internet.' Verizon's now also issued a statement and, like Google, it's denying the claims in the original New York Times report."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Get ready to Bend over America (2, Insightful)

JohnRoss1968 (574825) | more than 4 years ago | (#33147886)

What ever happened to Do No Evil

Re:Get ready to Bend over America (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33147902)

They realized they could make money on this internet thing.

Re:Get ready to Bend over America (3, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148116)

Oh the poor stupid fucking cunts. don't they realise that this will end up with everything being charged commercially to the consumer which will totally wipe out their busines model?

Re:Get ready to Bend over America (2, Funny)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148470)

Not if there's any truth the idea that google is the new microsoft.

Re:Get ready to Bend over America (-1, Offtopic)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 4 years ago | (#33147904)

Mod parent up!

Re:Get ready to Bend over America (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33147946)

Well, the internet was pretty cool while it lasted.

Is there anything excessive greed can't ruin?

Re:Get ready to Bend over America (4, Insightful)

GrumblyStuff (870046) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148408)

I would suggest the sun but I wouldn't want them to see that as a challenge....

Re:Get ready to Bend over America (5, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148434)

I would suggest the sun

Too late. Ask Oracle about that one.

Re:Get ready to Bend over America (4, Insightful)

drHirudo (1830056) | more than 4 years ago | (#33147958)

It always happens this way. Big corporations with the big money eat the small companies. If you can not afford to pay for driving on the highway, you have to drive on the second class roads. Same for the Internet - the big corporations now can have fast servers, with fast speeds, while the small business and individuals can not afford speed, offering slower services. Nothing new under the sun.

Re:Get ready to Bend over America (3, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148432)

I don't know where you live, but highways here aren't restricted by how much you. They are a public resource and encroachment by a company is a crime. As far as end users of the highways, its not a valid analogy.

Perhaps its time to declare the networks a public resource before its too late.

Re:Get ready to Bend over America (4, Interesting)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 4 years ago | (#33147984)

Google do not make all the worlds rules. One thing they are good at is adapting to them and trying to make the best out of bad situations. Google had hoped for legislation forbidding deals like these but when the politicians dont dare, google adapts.

Re:Get ready to Bend over America (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33148074)

Google do not make all the worlds rules. One thing they are good at is adapting to them and trying to make the best out of bad situations. Google had hoped for legislation forbidding deals like these but when the politicians dont dare, google adapts.

Google has enough market power to effectively set the rules.

If Google said "We will no longer serve any Google content to any ISP which violates Net Neutrality", the debate would basically be over. You wouldn't even need any government regulation.

Re:Get ready to Bend over America (3, Interesting)

brasselv (1471265) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148338)

Google has enough market power to effectively set the rules.

Despite its market power, Google does NOT control the food chain.
If 10 major ISPs decide tomorrow to do a "little favor" to Bing (God forbid), this would immediately and effectively hurt Google - massively.

It is certainly unlikely, but not impossible.

Re:Get ready to Bend over America (2, Insightful)

aurispector (530273) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148424)

I'd say it's impossible. Google is too big to ignore. Frankly, if something like that happened you'd see congressional involvement. The market as a whole, however, is bigger than Google. When the top players all want tiered services, eventually they'll find a way to get it, even if it means death to the internet as we know it.

Hah, you seriously believe that? (3, Informative)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148422)

If Google was that brazen in attempting to give major ISPs marching orders, you would see all of the major players throttle their bandwidth and prioritize Yahoo and Bing just to make it clear that Google can't control them.

Re:Get ready to Bend over America (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148182)

You mean like bending over like a bunch of limp wristed queens when it came to China?

Re:Get ready to Bend over America (5, Informative)

VirusEqualsVeryYes (981719) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148070)

Actually, NYT got this story very wrong, according to cnet [cnet.com] :

As part of the deal, Verizon would agree not to selectively throttle Internet traffic through its pipes. That would not, however, apply to data traveling over its wireless network for mobile phones, the report says.

Re:Get ready to Bend over America (3, Interesting)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148132)

That fits. The mobile providers are terrified of being seen as mere data carriers, because it would disassociate their one real asset - phone numbers - from their network. Currently you can only reach a phone number on their network, via their network (or via a roaming agreement). Switching your phone number to another network is a pain in the ass.

Remove that anchor, and customers will be free to migrate from one network service to another. Which means they would have to operate on their merits, which they really don't want to have to do.

Re:Get ready to Bend over America (5, Informative)

Splab (574204) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148156)

Its called number porting and happens all the time. Here in the EU operators are required to service a porting within a month - in the coming years we will be required to service them within 1 week, then 1 day and finally within the hour of a request, so no, it wont be a pain in the ass.

Obviously, if you do something silly and handcuff yourself to a contract for 2 years, then yes it's a pain, but you lie as you lay your bed.

Re:Get ready to Bend over America (4, Informative)

mcvos (645701) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148230)

Switching your phone number to another network is a pain in the ass.

What? Switching a phone number to another network is easy as pie. People do it all the time. Porting your number is a standard part of the procedure for getting a new subscription. At least in the EU. Here, phone companies are required to support it, and it's a good thing too.

The only way customers are bound to networks is through their contracts, and phone companies pull some weird shit to keep existing customers in.

I'm currently writing software for mobile phone contracts. It's ridiculous how many different kinds of discounts existing customers can get for renewing their contract. (Of course the discounts are optional. You don't get them automatically, but only when you're planning to leave. Don't forget to renew your contract every time it ends, or you'll be missing out on tons of discounts!)

Re:Get ready to Bend over America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33148436)

Switching a phone number to another network is easy as pie.

That's the theory. In practice you can wind up with your phone number in limbo for weeks, so people tend to avoid going to another operator for fear of (temporarily) losing their number. When I last tried to port a number, it resulted in a drawn out mess and the issue was only resolved one step before it would have gone to court.

Re:Get ready to Bend over America (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148498)

I admit I've also given up a phone number that I'd actually wanted to keep. I got it through a budget reseller, and when I wanted to switch, it turned out to be a corporate phone number, and they couldn't migrate it for me without permission from the owning company, whoever that was. Or something like that. I just gave up.

But really, it's supposed to be easy.

Re:Get ready to Bend over America (3, Informative)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148476)

Phone companies are required by law in the US to move the phone number also. I don't think it's been a "pain in the ass" for like a decade to move the phone number to another network.

But there do seem to be a couple of loopholes around moving to subsidiary networks of the *same* network: e.g. Moving from Sprint to Boost looks like they might be able to give you a hard time.

Re:Get ready to Bend over America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33148324)

Number portability has been around in the states for years. I've used it before when switching carriers with no problems. You just go into the new shop, give them your info, sign up for their service and let them make the switch. It may take a few hours before the transfer is complete, during which time you may need to keep your old and new phone handy, but other than that it's pretty painless.

Unless, of course, you are still under a contract with the old carrier.

Re:Get ready to Bend over America (1)

chrish (4714) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148406)

As crap as Canada's wireless cartel are, they're still required to let you port your number from one carrier to another. In practice it takes a couple of hours, although they do warn you it could take a day or so.

Of course, here three year contracts are standard, and the three companies that own ~95% of the market offer essentially the same services/products at the same prices, so I don't think most people take advantage of this.

Re:Get ready to Bend over America (2, Insightful)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148076)

They got into the stock exchange. That means a lot of minor investors who would be quite content to own a not evil corporation, and a few big ones that dictate the policy and could not care less if it's google inc. or saddam hussein inc.

Anyway the problem is not (lack of) network neutrality. That's a symptom. The problem is network topology. Internet has become centralized. It cannot be a bastion of freedom that way and IMHO it developed so fast because it wasn't meant to be.

The way out would be mesh network overlays , or p2p, coupled with independent wifi ac points, and/or sneakernet.

And governments are not going to allow that for fear of terrorism and child porn of course.

Re:Get ready to Bend over America (5, Informative)

panaceaa (205396) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148096)

Full disclosure, I work for Google. But I have no say in these kinds of things. Normally I wouldn't comment on such an article, but do I think it's enlightening to hear Google's side of the story. Therefore, here are CEO Eric Schmidt's recent comments on this topic:

"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."

Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-20012723-56.html?tag=mncol;txt [cnet.com]

Basically, it's important for VOIP to have a certain quality of service for clear voice calls, but different QOS rules may make sense for other data types. For example, downloading raw data files can be bursty. Precaching future web pages or Javascripts doesn't have to always succeed. But, "you don't discriminate against one person's [data] in favor of another".

Re:Get ready to Bend over America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33148162)

The issue of the article seems to be that Google's traffic would gain priority, as I read it. However, if you're right, I could be okay with such an agreement.

Re:Get ready to Bend over America (0, Troll)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148216)

Sure, that's handy. Verizon will not discriminate between Gmail and Hotmail. They will download at the same rate. Nice and speedy because Verizon doesn't make any money on email.

Verizon won't discriminate between Flickr and and Picasa, they will download at the same rate, pretty speedy because Verizon doesn't make any money selling photo hosting - but possibly a bit slower than email, because pics use more bandwidth which costs Verizon money.

Verizon won't discriminate between Hulu and Netflix or Amazon video downloads. They'll all download at the same rate - so slow as to be unusable, or at least so slow as to make Verizon's pay per view an attractive alternative, because Verizon sells video downloads and will have that incentive.

Sort of like giving McDonald's authority to set the prices on Wendys, Hardees, Burger King, Jack In The Box and Carl's Jr. hamburgers.

McDonald's promises they won't show favoritism in setting their competitor's prices, they'll do it uniformly across the board. And they will. All their competitor's burger prices will be set at $100 each.

Thanks Google.

You are right. It is enlightening to hear Google's side of the story. Not a surprising side, pretty much the same side as any corporation. Their side? "we will do whatever makes us the most money regardless of the damage it causes." Of course - not articulately that clearly, that honestly... because deliberately giving being deceptive and obfuscating the message better serves that amoral aim than being truthful.

"Don't be evil?" Marketing speak. Keep your prey, er I mean the public mislead. Better for profits. No different than Apple saying "Think Different" as they sell their products as the ultimate symbols of conformity, a conformity so important that people will literally line up at the doors waiting for a new product so as not to be seen for a second as being on the "outside" of what's desirable.

Same as Fox News, selling lies and propaganda with the slogan "Fair and Balanced."

Thanks, Google. Thanks for selling us all out. I hope your profits are worth it. And to the OP, I hope your bonus is worth the selling of your personal integrity, considering that the only thing a person has that can never be taken by force is their integrity. I wouldn't want you to have sold this one thing you truly would have owned forever too cheaply.

Re:Get ready to Bend over America (5, Insightful)

bgarcia (33222) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148266)

Verizon won't discriminate between Hulu and Netflix or Amazon video downloads. They'll all download at the same rate - so slow as to be unusable, or at least so slow as to make Verizon's pay per view an attractive alternative, because Verizon sells video downloads and will have that incentive.

The agreement means that Verizon won't be able to give their own video downloads an advantage like you describe.

"we will do whatever makes us the most money regardless of the damage it causes."

In what way do you believe that your scenario (giving Verizon PPV an advantage over other video services like YouTube) helps Google make more money?

Very poorly thought-out troll. No cookie for you.

Re:Get ready to Bend over America (1)

Sethumme (1313479) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148360)

There is the potential problem when one service uses a different avenue of communication than the competing services. Such as when one company provides video as bulk data downloads, and another only provides them via video-stream. Or when one company provides navigation information some kind of direct-to-device status update, but others are forced to use standard internet packets. I'm not saying it's wrong (or that it could even be effectively regulated), but it is quite possible to differentiate the same service using distinct data types, which could be charged separately.

Re:advantage (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148458)

Aren't "agreements" awesome?

It's the Boiling Lobster principle. You carefully word the first announcement as a "compromise", then later when it's OldHat, you "modifiy certain ancillary factors". (Nice juicy words sure to bore the public.)

Re:Get ready to Bend over America (2, Interesting)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148426)

That's an interesting point of view, but as a customer, what say do I get in this I wonder. Example, if a bunch of CEOs decide video is more important so they give it priority over everything else, but to me it's not nearly as important as moving around large files or having a snappy web, will I get a choice in the matter - do I get a discount because I'm not enjoying super fast video, or do I have to pay the same as people who are getting much greater benefit than me because they're only using their connection for video.

Re:Get ready to Bend over America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33148106)

What ever happened to Do No Evil

Did you REALLY believe that?

From a company where the founders got their own private jumbo jet?

Re:Get ready to Bend over America (2, Interesting)

mcvos (645701) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148212)

Wasn't Google supposed to be the main party in favour of net neutrality? What happened?

Re:Get ready to Bend over America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33148260)

Do No Evil is not cost effective nor profitable.

Every business realises that as they are not charities. It is a false business model and one doomed to failure and backlash on those failures.

Forget Google (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148410)

This is what we were warning the FCC about if we didn't pass/enforce/etc 'net neutrality'. This path will end up putting content companies that cant pony up to the mafia.

Re:Get ready to Bend over America (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148454)

You're taking it out of context.

Clearly, when you add in the context, it's, "Do No Evil, Unless It's Convenient."

Re:Get ready to Bend over America (1)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148490)

What ever happened to Do No Evil

It got beat up by The 3 Laws of Profit.

Point of view is wrong (5, Insightful)

Pop69 (700500) | more than 4 years ago | (#33147900)

You aren't speeding some traffic up, you're slowing the rest down.

Re:Point of view is wrong (1)

The_PHP_Jedi (1320371) | more than 4 years ago | (#33147948)

I concur. The media often creates false illusions... particularly that this will allow for faster Internet connections than what users already have. Under that premise, go ahead... but as a Web developer, and a user who likes his smaller Web sites, no way.

Re:Point of view is wrong (1)

h7 (1855514) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148080)

I concur. The media often creates false illusions...

I wonder what true illusions are like?

Re:Point of view is wrong (2, Interesting)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 4 years ago | (#33147996)

Maybe google's just setting up a dedicated link between themselves and Verizon? The article basically just says "google will be paying verizon to speed up youtube".

That would be entirely benign, and the article is so vague that it could include this.

Re:Point of view is wrong (1)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148016)

wishful thinking...

Re:Point of view is wrong (3, Insightful)

IAmGarethAdams (990037) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148024)

Right, and as soon as this happens how many other companies then Google will queue up to get their website content delivered faster to consumers?

Of course Verizon won't increase the bandwidth to get this content delivered faster. They'll prioritize the paid content over the unpaid content, meaning that the small guys will be stuck on the "lower tier" of the Internet.

And of course, once Verizon are doing this, the other network providers won't want to miss out on the potential double profit of getting content providers and consumers to pay for the faster service

Re:Point of view is wrong (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148456)

Just what I thought - "google will be paying verizon to speed up youtube" isn't as vague as GP suggests. Unless Google are paying an absolute fortune, it won't be sufficient to upgrade infrastructure to pay for the additional speed, and since we're seemingly already at capacity (there might be a bottleneck in delivering the content from Google to Verizon but there's also a bottleneck in delivering it from Verizon to the home, solving one won't solve the other) the only way to achieve that extra speed is to take it from elsewhere. I'm calling slippery slope.

Re:Point of view is wrong (1)

sortia (1191847) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148108)

This sound to me basically the same as what the BBC are currently doing on iplayer with project cheetah, having a cache of the video at the isp level to save bandwidth!

Et tu, Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33147922)

Backstabbing sons of ...

And so it begins (1)

Draconis183 (1871664) | more than 4 years ago | (#33147926)

Isn't this basically along the same lines as the net neutrality debate? Funny, seeing how Google is a proponant...

Re:And so it begins (2, Insightful)

VShael (62735) | more than 4 years ago | (#33147930)

So long as there is a healthy amount of cash to go with it, Google will be a proponent of anything you like.

Re:And so it begins (3, Interesting)

lengau (817416) | more than 4 years ago | (#33147938)

The part of me that really just wants Google to be doing the right thing after all really wants me to believe that they're doing this to spark outrage to make net neutrality a law. The rest of me is disappointed until that suspicion gets confirmed.

Re:And so it begins (1)

The_PHP_Jedi (1320371) | more than 4 years ago | (#33147952)

You actually gave me a little bit of hope that Google's philosophies haven't been thrown completely down the drain... Lets hope for the outrage theory.

Re:And so it begins (4, Insightful)

pedantic bore (740196) | more than 4 years ago | (#33147940)

Google is for net neutrality when the lack of net neutrality could cost Google money.

Google is against net neutrality when the lack of net neutrality could gain Google money.

In related news, Google is a publicly-traded for-profit corporation with an eye on the bottom line. Get used to it.

Re:And so it begins (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33148078)

In related news, Google is a publicly-traded for-profit corporation with an eye on the bottom line. Get used to it.

When I see cynical remarks like those, it forces me to re-evaluate my opinion on the "corporations are persons" type of talk. It's better to see them as persons, and ask of them to act morally, than completely let them off the hook, because it's a corporation.

Re:And so it begins (1)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148244)

Wouldn't it be best to raise a fuss and (figuratively) bash a few CEOs and Congresswhore's heads in until corporations were no longer legally allowed to be persons, with the rights of people, and instead are treated as what they really are - organizations with no inherent legal rights, only those granted to them by the charter given them by government (ie, representatives of REAL people), a charter that is regulated, is conditional on their following certain rules, and which can be revoked should they break those rules?

What the hell happened inside Google? (5, Interesting)

The_PHP_Jedi (1320371) | more than 4 years ago | (#33147936)

Their motto has been thrown down the drain with the recent press releases, media coverage, and acquisitions. It's almost as if they're no longer the original company with their great philosophies.

1. Investment in Zynga, a company who's CEO admitted to using forms of fraud to ensure the success of his company.
2. Acquisition of Slide, another company whose success is mostly based upon their acknowledged violation of MySpace's Terms of Service.
3. Discontinuation of Google Wave, a product which despite relatively low adoption levels, is very powerful and useful for many users. It's basically as awesome as GMail, but for a more niche market.
4. Now, (even though talks began 10 months ago) an agreement which undermines Net Neutrality... not by lobbying against it, not by crossing their arms regarding the issue, but by planning to make an agreement between another private company, as if the Internet were owned by them (Google)?

I'm dumbfounded. Simply dumbfounded.

I've sincerely been a Google supporter since a little kid, and loved their products, services, and philosophies... and for most of this time, I ignored most critics, since Google actually kept doing good for the most part. Now, all of that has changed. I'm very disappointed in Google. :/

Wave is the best you can come up with? (-1, Troll)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148006)

Oh noes! They dumped a product that no-one liked! What next? Google Buzz?!!

Re:Wave is the best you can come up with? (1)

GrumblyStuff (870046) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148474)

The cancellation of Wave is actually a good point. It says that there's pressure on Google to tighten their belt.

Re:What the hell happened inside Google? (2, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148054)

If you really feel that way, then vote with your business and use Yahoo Search [yahoo.com] . if enough people dumped them over this they might have second thoughts, and at the very least you would be standing up for your principles and supporting an underdog. Yahoo Search is really good now, especially the "More" tab (that is the little tab below the search box after you've run a query) which not only gives you common words added to your search like Google, but related concepts, such as searching for "Dark Knight" will give you Chris Nolan, Heath Ledger, etc.

As for TFA, can we all agree that "Do No Evil" bullshit is officially shot to hell? It was good PR spin while it lasted, but short of hanging puppies from the Google offices I can't see how they can get more evil as an Internet company than to screw the web by turning against Net Neutrality, especially considering now that Google has done it every other big player will be cutting backroom deals to jump on the bandwagon.

Re:What the hell happened inside Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33148194)

Nice try, Steve Ballmer.

Re:What the hell happened inside Google? (1)

vigmeister (1112659) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148412)

What do you mean "Nice try"? He wasn't really trying to hide behind that username, you know...

Re:What the hell happened inside Google? (1)

bhatji (311418) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148068)

Well ... welcome to the real world.

Re:What the hell happened inside Google? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148444)

They grew up and smelled the corporate coffee.

Didn't the original founders cash out and move on not too long ago? Or did i mis-read that story?

Bad Google (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33147944)

you're a very bad Google and I'm gonna wish you into the corn field !

Re:Bad Google (1)

Scarletdown (886459) | more than 4 years ago | (#33147968)

you're a very bad Google and I'm gonna wish you into the corn field !

Too late. I already wished them into Cartoon Land.

If Google Drops Net Neutrality (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 4 years ago | (#33147950)

... then I drop Google. Period. End of story.

Re:If Google Drops Net Neutrality (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33148014)

I used Bing once a few days ago, because Google kept giving me shit results. I felt dirty, like noob searching for the very first time. But then a series of conflicting emotions went through me as Bing gave me better results than google.

Yeah, let that sink in.

I still don't know how to feel about that day. I figure that I'll pretend it never happened, just like that gay experience that I never had.

Re:If Google Drops Net Neutrality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33148072)

What where you searching for?

Oh dear. (1)

Kireas (1784888) | more than 4 years ago | (#33147954)

Looks like all us 'little' sites are getting booted off the internet soon.
Oh well. It was a good run, right guys?

Re:Oh dear. (2, Interesting)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148052)

Looks like all us 'little' sites are getting booted off the internet soon.
Oh well. It was a good run, right guys?

Disruptive technology. Doesn't preserve the existing power structure. The only marvel is that it has lasted this long.

Do Google have any choice? (3, Interesting)

Kifoth (980005) | more than 4 years ago | (#33147960)

The tone of the article suggests that the FCC's ability to maintain Net Neutrality is on life support. It appears as though Google have seen the writing on the wall and are trying to "stake ground" under what they probably see as a new business landscape.

The answer is simple (1)

Stonefish (210962) | more than 4 years ago | (#33147982)

Don't buy from Vendors which do this, and yes Google does have a choice though they may have to tumble into the mobile phone business.

Re:The answer is simple (1)

nysus (162232) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148118)

Yeah, real simple if you have about a $100 million for a sustained advertising campaign to educate the public on an arcane issue.

New York Times has odd sources (5, Interesting)

asaz989 (901134) | more than 4 years ago | (#33147986)

According to this [bloomberg.com] Bloomberg story, the New York Times is only accurate in that Google and Verizon negotiated net neutrality on everything but mobile networks, and hence Verizon will be allowed to do traffic discrimination on those lines.

But I find it a little odd to write up that story as "Google and Verizon negotiating an end to net neutrality" rather than as "Google and Verizon negotiating to preserve net neutrality on most internet connections."

Re:New York Times has odd sources (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33148284)

It's like opening Pandora's box -- you think other content providers and ISPs won't follow suit? you think this will remain limited to the mobile world? -- so in effect they are negotiating an end to net neutrality.

Re:New York Times has odd sources (5, Informative)

YojimboJango (978350) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148312)

So, basically from reading the two articles I'm pissed that they jerked me around like that. It's intentionally misleading and reactionary.
Everything could be true in that article if they would have prefaced, "Google has made a deal to put Net Neutrality into practice right now for everything but mobile traffic." You are all being lied to by this article

Verizon Communications Inc. and Google Inc. have struck their own accord
on handling Internet traffic, as both participate in talks by U.S. officials
on Web policy, two people briefed by the companies said.

The compromise as described would restrict Verizon from selectively slowing
Internet content that travels over its wires, but wouldn't apply such limits
to Internet use on mobile phones, according to the people, who spoke yesterday
and asked not to be identified before an announcement.

Bravo slashdot. You made me panicked and then pissed off at your mods before breakfast.

a new motto maybe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33148020)

so much for don't be evil...

It was nice to know you America... (1)

gnurfed (1051140) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148036)

...but seeing as you seem hell bent into walling off your part of the internet into compartmentalized corporate domains, we might not hear much from you in the future. Good luck with that.

already paying twice (3, Interesting)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148058)

The internet-subscriber is already paying for his/her content delivery. And web-site owners are paying as well for the upload of data. We are already paying twice. And now this...

Re:already paying twice (2, Informative)

mbone (558574) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148314)

We are already paying twice

Bingo. Remember, the old Bell system philosophy was that the phone company controlled all traffic on their networks, and charged everyone for everything that passed their network, under the protection of a government monopoly. They have been trying to recreate this for over two decades now, and preventing that is what the net neutrality fight is really about.

The Article is not clear (1)

h7 (1855514) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148112)

I somehow get the feeling we are missing something here." agreement that could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content's creators are willing to pay for the privilege. " Suppose I have a 768kbps connection. Maybe what google is trying to do is allow things like youtube to stream at 3Mbps, *at no extra cost to customers* but youtube will absorb the costs. I think this could very well be the case.

Re:The Article is not clear (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148280)

If you have a 768 Kbps connection, no amount of traffic engineering will allow you to receive a 3 Mbps stream.

Re:The Article is not clear (1)

h7 (1855514) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148342)

Why not? The line is not changing, the ISP would just activate the faster plan for those sites. When I lived in LA the minimum plan was 768 Kbps and the max supported in my house was 3 Mbps.

I'm on Fios and Youtube is insanely slow. (0)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148122)

Having 25mb/25mb Fiber on Fios, is great, until you go to Youtube.

Youtube has become so slow, most videos only partially load after 10 minutes, if they load at all. If you refresh a few times, you might get lucky and actually get an SD video to stream...

Youtube sucks.

You know why? Because their advertisements stream just fine! They're fast as lightning... but when they finish, and the video that you wanted to watch, should start streaming away.... It fucking dies like a grandma climbing a mountain.

Youtube fucking sucks.

This experience has been confirmed by several Fios users, and others around the web.

The days of going to Youtube, and having a video play... are fucking over.

Metacafe streams just fine... Vimeo... no problemo...

Youtube... is a fucking crap shoot... but their advertisements are lightning fast!!!!! OH BOY.

Re:I'm on Fios and Youtube is insanely slow. (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148144)

and I'll add...

Fuck you Verizon for holding your paying customers hostage, if you're throttling youtube, just to get money from Google.

Re:I'm on Fios and Youtube is insanely slow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33148226)

Uh... I load 1080p videos on youtube completely in a matter of minutes on my crappy ADSL line. Sounds like something is up for you, not everyone.

Re:I'm on Fios and Youtube is insanely slow. (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148364)

That something, could simply be Verizons doing because the folks I know all have given up on Youtube and are frustrated with its performance lately. I can say that it has started in the past 6 months, maybe even longer.

It has become so annoying, that everytime I hope Youtube works right, it doesnt.

Youtube used to load up ridiculously fast 2 years ago.

Re:I'm on Fios and Youtube is insanely slow. (1)

Issarlk (1429361) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148232)

well, don't worry because things are looking up!
Soon Metacafe and Vimeo will be as slow as youtube too. Unless you pay for access.

Meanwhile the Japanese will get 1Gb/s transfers. Oh well, one can't expect good internet while living in a third world country.

"Don't be evil." (0, Troll)

oDDmON oUT (231200) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148160)

My @ss.

Re:"Don't be evil." (3, Funny)

Eudial (590661) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148304)

What about your atss?

Meanwhile 4 years ago (4, Informative)

Stan Vassilev (939229) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148166)

Eveyone keeps quoting the "do not evil" mantra, but we have something a lot more solid on Google's own site:

Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody - no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional - has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can't pay.

Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight. Please call your representative (202-224-3121) and let your voice be heard.

Thanks for your time, your concern and your support.

Eric Schmidt

Source: http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html [google.com]

I'm not taking sides, and the details have not been announced, but it better not go 180 on the statement above.
By the way, the official press releases from the companies are set to be out on bad-news-Friday. Not a good sign...

I wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33148176)

... when the first lawsuit against an isp/cell provider will hinge on the fact that by filtering packets to control their speed, they're NOT acting as common carriers. Thus, they're willfully letting through whatever the hell people wanted to sue over.

It's like this... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33148198)

Dear Google,

I am writing to you today with regard to what many people have been referring to by the name of "network neutrality". As a regular user of your web search and video streaming sites, I notice that there is a large amount of bandwidth being consumed delivering content from yourselves. And that, despite the majority of my internet bandwidth being consumend by content delivery from Google services, Google do not contribute to the costs of my internet connection.

Clearly this financial imbalance, whereby I fund Googles use of my home network, cannot continue. Therefore I think it would be in the best interests of both parties if we could reach a financial arrangement that would enable me to keep streaming Downfall parodies from YouTube.

I look forward to your response.

Regards,

Anonymous Coward

Google flips the evil bit (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148270)

No surprise, really, but a shame.

kaan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33148330)

Thanks to great content:) [kaancan.co.cc]

Way to keep on making phone usage more ridiculous (2, Interesting)

adosch (1397357) | more than 4 years ago | (#33148374)

IMHO, not only has Verizon become an evil glutton when it's come to data plans in combination with certain (all) phones which are marketed almost as bad as laptops and PCs are now-a-days (e.g. "Multimedia", "Great for checking e-mail and updating your twit-face account"), but THEN want to add tiered broadband access constraints at the user for something they *always* got, and now start referring to some access as *premium*? This shit is out of control.

Finally! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33148386)

You BitTorrent freeloaders are finally going to have to start paying your fair share!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?