Technology giants Google and Verizon have today paved the way for a future 'two-tier' internet in which companies can pay extra to make sure their services get through.
In a joint statement the two firms called for a new, premium connection which would let internet service providers, such as Virgin, charge more for certain services over faster, higher-quality lines.
But critics have accused Google and Verizon of plotting to carve up the internet to suit big, established firms like themselves.
Read more: Google and Verizon insist 'net neutrality' not affected by internet superhighway plans | Mail Online
Google and Verizon insist 'net neutrality' not affected by internet superhighway plans | Mail Online
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 2:31 PM on 10th August 2010
So, it's NOT 'ending net-neutrality' like the 'conspiracy theorists' were claiming... they are just creating a 'two-tier' internet where mainstream voices get heard louder then the blogs... oh and for faster 3d gaming connections, cause those bandwidth hog gamers aren't paying a premium (or enough of one).
I knew Google was untrustworthy, despite the happy face they put on. This proves it.
"Don't be Evil....until we get big enough and everyone has been bull****ted enough to where we can start being it and getting away with it."
You can always log off and go outside.
Sounds like the internet is becoming like the cable system. Instead of getting better and cheaper, it will be mired down in fees, taxes, and other charges that make it cost prohibitive.
j-mac
"Don't be Evil....until we get big enough and everyone has been bull****ted enough to where we can start being it and getting away with it."
It's all about creating new sources of revenue, while utilizing a federally subsidized resource and screwing the consumer. Yay for corporate America. They can always be trusted to make a dick move for a few bucks.
So, to use your reasoning, is this an example of competition bringing the best to the market? :roll:Come on Catz....Cut the "corporate America" crap! Business is good, and we need more of it. Competition is the only thing that brings the best cost to the market. Not Government shill companies monopolizing the market and bleeding the consumer.
j-mac
So, to use your reasoning, is this an example of competition bringing the best to the market? :roll:
It's funny how you knee-jerk into corporate-shill-speak.
You know this is bad...for consumers, for the internet, and it was a corporate decision purely to boost profits, and may even be illegal.
Sometimes, corporations aren't pure & holy bastions of sacred capitalism, they're assholes out to screw the American people for a buck and abusers of the free market. And when they overstep, they should be smacked back into place.
Hmmm....You're sounding rather authoritarian today Catz. Surely not in line with the 'Centrist' you claim to be. Rather more like Commune living.
j-mac
Sounds like the internet is becoming like the cable system. Instead of getting better and cheaper, it will be mired down in fees, taxes, and other charges that make it cost prohibitive.
j-mac
I don't hate business. My dad was a farmer and small businessman. I work for a small company. I just don't believe that corporations are above reproach. I believe that government can play a valuable role as a check on their impulses that may not serve the interests of consumers. That IS a moderate approach.
Hmmm...And was your father's reason for getting into business to give away that labor for free because it served the community better? I am interested in what "impulses" you think the government needs to control? profit? success? Because without those things, there won't be any business to "serve the interest of the consumer."
j-mac
My dad didn't use a publicly funded resource to shaft his customers. Fail. If you, as a business, utilize something that we, the people, paid to develop, you don't get to use it to **** us. Boo-yah.
See, I'm anti-welfare. Anti-corporate welfare, in particular. Corporate welfare destroys the free market system.
Ok, if that is so, although I don't see any farmers not using water, however he very well could have used his own supply.
I am curious though, as a farmer, there are taxes to pay, and most businesses pass those along in the cost of the goods. Are you saying that your dad ate those?
Let's get back on topic: Do you think that Google and Verizon should be allowed to pursue this plan? If so, why?
I have to admit self interest in this one. If Google and Verizon are doing this to provide a more secure, and faster environment on the net for things like Medical records, and the cost of that won't be passed along to me, then I say go for it. But, being realistic, what won't be passed along to me in greater cost?
That's not actually how it will work. Google/Verizon plan to charge content providers to expedite delivery/loading of their content to potential viewers. In other words, click on Amazon, MSNBC, or a major motion picture's commercial website, and pages will download with lightening speed. Click on a smallish blog, and it will download like molasses. Only mega sites will be able to afford to pay for their content to be sped up on the fast lane, and independent content, such as blogs, etc. will be slowed down. In other words, commerical content will get privileged delivery to us, and independent content will be more difficult for us to receive.
The net effect will be to shift internet users to mainstream media and commercial content, and away from smaller, more independent voices.
You can see how that might be bad and stifle the growth of independent media via blogging, right? It will have a chilling effect on exactly the equality of content delivery that has made the internet such a growth medium for communicating with like-minded people.
In that explanation, then I am against it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?