Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 32 of 32
  1. #26
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473
    What company does care about the consumer?
    Exactly. That's why it's important to get the word out and around.

  2. #27
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    Just like corps are trying get water utilities privatized, they are trying to get the Internet "utililty" privatized, more "monetized".

  3. #28
    The D.R.A. Drachen's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Post Count
    11,214
    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!!"

  4. #29
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    113,976

  5. #30
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    113,976
    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 compe ive 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/

  6. #31
    Veteran
    My Team
    Utah Jazz
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Post Count
    7,778
    this. this ing bull . 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 they are.

  7. #32
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    113,976
    topically related, Google faces record an rust 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 compe ion online had not been finalised.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/...onopoly-abuse/

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •