Google and Verizon in Talks on Selling Internet Priority

[ElNono]

Google and Verizon in Talks on Selling Internet Priority (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/technology/05secret.html?_r=1&hp)

WASHINGTON — Google and Verizon, two leading players in Internet service and content, 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.

The charges could be paid by companies, like YouTube, owned by Google, for example, to Verizon, one of the nation’s leading Internet service providers, to ensure that its content received priority as it made its way to consumers. The agreement could eventually lead to higher charges for Internet users.

Such an agreement could overthrow a once-sacred tenet of Internet policy known as net neutrality, in which no form of content is favored over another. In its place, consumers could soon see a new, tiered system, which, like cable television, imposes higher costs for premium levels of service.

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.

Full article here (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/technology/05secret.html?_r=1&hp)

[Veterinarian]

I've read articles about this, people predict in the future big websites will have faster connections than other websites creating a sort of class system among websites. Hard for me to get upset about this, as this is how Capitalism works tbh.

[admiralsnackbar]

I've read articles about this, people predict in the future big websites will have faster connections than other websites creating a sort of class system among websites. Hard for me to get upset about this, as this is how Capitalism works tbh.

As soon as corporations pony up to create a new web infrastructure, everything you're saying is fine. Until then, they have no justification to be adjusting web traffic speeds.

[spursncowboys]

hell yeah admiralsnackbar

[ElNono]

It's a new artificial barrier to entry that didn't exist before, IMO.

It's interesting that Google is into this, because I doubt they or sites like YouTube would exist with such a tiered system.

[ElNono]

As soon as corporations pony up to create a new web infrastructure, everything you're saying is fine. Until then, they have no justification to be adjusting web traffic speeds.

ISPs are not going to create any new infrastructure. They just want to double dip in the current architecture at the expense of the consumer obviously.

[Veterinarian]

Well, if you're an ISP you're going to operate your business like any other Capitalist enterprise and pursue ventures that bring you a profit. If a website or search provider offers to pay you money or a better deal than another website you're going to take it. Otherwise you're going to fall behind another company. Pretty simple really.

[boutons_deux]

Taxpayers paid for the development of Internet, corps monetize it and fuck it up, like everything else they touch.

[Winehole23]

It not the monetization per se that grates, it's the threatened half-throttling of access.

[ChuckD]

Well, if you're an ISP you're going to operate your business like any other Capitalist enterprise and pursue ventures that bring you a profit. If a website or search provider offers to pay you money or a better deal than another website you're going to take it. Otherwise you're going to fall behind another company. Pretty simple really.


Right. So I can just go hire a construction company, put up a few toll booths on loop 1604 and start collecting dollars. Hey, I'm just being a good little capitalist, right?

[Drachen]

Right. So I can just go hire a construction company, put up a few toll booths on loop 1604 and start collecting dollars. Hey, I'm just being a good little capitalist, right?

HURRY! Someone else might do it!

[ElNono]

It not the monetization per se that grates, it's the threatened half-throttling of access.

Right. And the fact that while as a customer you might be paying for X speed, you won't get it if the site you're trying to access is not 'prioritized'.
There's just a set amount of bandwidth available. If you prioritize some, then you automatically have to throttle another.

It makes sense to prioritize for technical reasons (ie: real-time data such as VOIP). This other type of prioritization is a scam.

[Veterinarian]

Right. So I can just go hire a construction company, put up a few toll booths on loop 1604 and start collecting dollars. Hey, I'm just being a good little capitalist, right?

Well in that case you wouldn't be providing any service so that analogy is crap.


Right. And the fact that while as a customer you might be paying for X speed, you won't get it if the site you're trying to access is not 'prioritized'.
There's just a set amount of bandwidth available. If you prioritize some, then you automatically have to throttle another.

It makes sense to prioritize for technical reasons (ie: real-time data such as VOIP). This other type of prioritization is a scam.

I'm not for this plan but I'm not blaming the companies. They are only doing what companies in any Capitalist system do; seek out ways to make money or go onto the scrap heap of history. People have two options; go to a competing ISP or try to get the lawmakers to change the laws.

[EmptyMan]

I have massive faith in the mother's basement geek hoss and his ability to replace The Man on the internets just as he has done my entire lifetime.

[ElNono]

I'm not for this plan but I'm not blaming the companies. They are only doing what companies in any Capitalist system do; seek out ways to make money or go onto the scrap heap of history. People have two options; go to a competing ISP or try to get the lawmakers to change the laws.

ISPs are all jumping into the double-dip bandwagon. Obviously they couldn't care less about the consumer as long as they can milk them for more money.
See the Satellite/Cable TV bundling system for where this is headed.

So yeah, it will have to be either the FCC by reclassifying and regulating or lawmakers directly. The thing with the Internet is that you compete with the entire world. The US is already behind in broadband access. Adding more arbitrary barriers to entry just makes you less competitive, not more.

[velik_m]

ISPs are all jumping into the double-dip bandwagon. Obviously they couldn't care less about the consumer as long as they can milk them for more money.

It0s not the consumer money they want it's the company's money. Hey, FoxNews you want to deliver your video news at the same speed as CNN? Pay up bitches...

[Drachen]

It0s not the consumer money they want it's the company's money. Hey, FoxNews you want to deliver your video news at the same speed as CNN? Pay up bitches...

(sigh)
Really?
Let me explain to you how this works. Google contracts with verizon to up its speed. This creates a new expenditure for the company. Now Google can go tell the companies it sells ads to: Look, your content will be delivered faster with us, our system will be faster so more people will use it, so you need to pay us extra money for the ads. The companies will due to better value for their dollar. Now, these companies have an increase in the outflow of their budget. In order to offset, they will pass this on to their customers.

[ElNono]

(sigh)
Really?
Let me explain to you how this works. Google contracts with verizon to up its speed. This creates a new expenditure for the company. Now Google can go tell the companies it sells ads to: Look, your content will be delivered faster with us, our system will be faster so more people will use it, so you need to pay us extra money for the ads. The companies will due to better value for their dollar. Now, these companies have an increase in the outflow of their budget. In order to offset, they will pass this on to their customers.

Right. Plus all these companies already fork off money to the ISP for access. They're also consumers of the ISP. This would be an extra fee on top of that.

[DMX7]

Relax guys, the Multinational Corporations are going to do what's in our best interest. And they will properly account for the longterm consequences just as they always do. Nothing to see here.

[ducks]

Taxpayers paid for the development of Internet, corps monetize it and fuck it up, like everything else they touch.

eveything the gov touches or tries to do goes to hell

look at social security

[SnakeBoy]

Is this going to affect my access to porn? If so that's bullshit man! Greedy capitalists are ruining everything!

[boutons_deux]

"Google and Verizon rushed to deny the story, with Google saying, "we have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google traffic. We remain as committed as we always have been to an open Internet." Verizon said the story was "mistaken" and that there was no business arrangement between the two companies."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31322_3-20012822-256.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

[MiamiHeat]

My solution :

Create a new law declaring the internet a public service, the same way that roads are.

The government will remain neutral (lol) and keep it's maintenance, while generating revenue for the federal government or states through regular ways like ads and such. Then, everyone, citizens or corporations, profit or non-profit people can use it - with the condition that nobody is allowed to censor, manipulate, or alter the speed, content, or service.

Then expand the current FBI cyber police departments, just like highway patrols on interstate highways, to help monitor for terrorist or otherwise illegal activities.


wham bam thank you mam.

[John Terry]

(sigh)
Really?
Let me explain to you how this works. Google contracts with verizon to up its speed. This creates a new expenditure for the company. Now Google can go tell the companies it sells ads to: Look, your content will be delivered faster with us, our system will be faster so more people will use it, so you need to pay us extra money for the ads. The companies will due to better value for their dollar. Now, these companies have an increase in the outflow of their budget. In order to offset, they will pass this on to their customers.

try elucidating it again, you rancid faggot.

[Veterinarian]

ISPs are all jumping into the double-dip bandwagon. Obviously they couldn't care less about the consumer as long as they can milk them for more money.


What company does care about the consumer? Only companies that can afford to do that are a few select monopolies for the most part. Because they don't have any competition to push them to seek profits at all costs. If Verizon doesn't do this and A T & T does, that puts Verizon at a disadvantage. Unfortunately, even though the lawmakers should take action they won't because there's currently no public outcry or votes to be won over this issue.

[ElNono]

What company does care about the consumer?

Exactly. That's why it's important to get the word out and around.

[boutons_deux]

Just like corps are trying get water utilities privatized, they are trying to get the Internet "utililty" privatized, more "monetized".

[Drachen]

LOL, this leak was AOL's last gasp at relevance. Put this story out then say "Don't worry, we will still sell you internet access for 27 dollars a month, and we won't throttle down, you can get the full 53.3 k allowed by law over the telephone lines!!"

[Winehole23]

Legislative framework announced:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35599242/Verizon-Google-Legislative-Framework-Proposal (http://www.scribd.com/doc/35599242/Verizon-Google-Legislative-Framework-Proposal)

[Winehole23]

The key tradeoff being made here is between the treatment of wireless services, on the one hand, and the treatment of nondiscrimination, on the other. Google gave on wireless, and so there’s no policy suggestion for wireless net neutrality that has been provided by the companies. That’s a huge hole, given the growing popularity of wireless services and the recent suggestion by the Commission that we may not have a competitive wireless marketplace. Verizon gave on nondiscrimination, and so there is a suggestion that paid prioritization of services over the Internet would be presumed unlawful (something that AT&T would not have agreed to).


Both companies left “managed services” (or “other services”) off the table for regulation. That’s a giant, enormous, science-fiction-quality loophole. It means that Google and Verizon could decide what bits reach consumers more quickly; it means they’ll be able to favor particular uses of Internet access for exclusive deals. It’s the exception that swallows the rule, as lawyers like to say. It’s prioritization using another label. There’s a save in there that suggests that the “other service” has to be distinct in scope and purpose from Internet access (something cable would not have agreed to), but that’s a long way from an enforceable standard.
http://scrawford.net/blog/leadership-4/1382/

[balli]

Fuck this. Fuck this fucking bullshit. It won't make an ounce of difference, but ima be in googles ear every goddamn day, by e-mail and phone, telling them what pieces of shit they are.

[Winehole23]

topically related, Google faces record antitrust fines in the EU:


Google faces a record-breaking fine for monopoly abuse within weeks, as officials in Brussels put the finishing touches to a seven-year investigation of company’s dominant search engine.

It is understood that the European Commission is aiming to hit Google with a fine in the region of €3bn, a figure that would easily surpass its toughest anti-trust punishment to date, a €1.1bn fine levied on the microchip giant Intel.


Sources close to the situation said officials aimed to make an announcement before the summer break and could make their move as early as next month, although cautioned that Google’s bill for crushing competition online had not been finalised.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/05/14/google-faces-record-breaking-fine-for-web-search-monopoly-abuse/