Google and [insert any wireless carrier here] are the last two entities in the world that we'd expect to issue a joint statement on net neutrality, seeing how Google firmly believes the FCC should enforce it regardless of medium while
carriers generally want to be exempted -- but Verizon and The Goog have put their differences aside for just one day to put together a thoughtful, lengthy piece on the subject. There aren't any surprises in the piece other than the fact that CEOs Lowell McAdam and Eric Schmidt are personally attributed to the statement, but it echoes what most ISPs have been saying since new FCC chair Julius Genachowski came into play: they generally acknowledge that a free, unhindered internet has led to a better world and that it's in everyone's best interest to make sure that it continues to be that way. They go on to say that "there will be disagreements along the way" -- Google and Verizon don't see eye-to-eye on the finer points, for example -- but that they're all looking forward to a spirited debate with the folks over in Washington. Ultimately, the FCC's ability to effectively police true neutrality on wireless networks ties in deeply with its ability to free up a
lot more spectrum -- something the CTIA's been pushing for lately -- and Genachowski recently mentioned that they'd be looking into it, so this could all end up working out without any broken hearts or black eyes.
posted Oct 21st 2009 10:29PM
/Facepalm
I JUST looked at the name....
Now I feel completely stupid...
Kamil, you are absolutely, positively, the biggest idiot I have ever seen on this site.
It sounds good, but what about when they [government] shut down torrents and then tell you that you cannot say what you want in a comment box.
Turn ff Glenn Beck then you won't look as silly posting here :)
You know, not every conservative listens to Glen Beck, or agrees with his views.
Well when someone is posting the same exact BS lies he's been spouting all week I'd tend to think they're agreeing with him.
That is what Net Neutrality will PREVENT FROM HAPPENING. Neutral as it is today. Without neutrality, the Internet will be run and governed by the telecoms themselves...eliminating torrents and the free speech that we enjoy today.
Stop watching fox and do some real research...
okay I am getting confuse. Is net neutrality GOOD or BAD?
your on the internet use it to research this topic and decided for yourself. i personally think its good.
Partially.. For the ISP, it's bad because they have to spend lots of money on internet pipes when they really don't need to. For example, think QoS. Basically VoIP would have a higher priority then web surfing would, because things break down if it Grandma's recipe download gets put above John's 911 call. But now it's bad because not having it would allow ISP's to kill your torrent downloads if they want. So it's kind of half and half. Of course, take my input with a grain of salt because I do know a lot about the networking side of things, I don't know so much about the political side of things with what net neutrality exactly means for this stuff.
i just want super fast internet and that is not Censor... So what should i vote for.
Ron Paul
What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?
awesome Futurama reference :-D
When did Verizon and Google become BFFs?
ask droid
One of these things is not like the others
One of these things just doesn't belong
Because AT+T is the competitor, so Verizon's gotta do opposite.
Thanks.
....Thank you for your irrelevant, yet true, comment.
I will down rank you, since I know others will see "Microsoft" and "greatest" in the same sentence, and up vote you without hesitation.
Hopefully, you won't get "Highest Ranked", since that would show that Windows fans like myself are just as big of trolls as the Apple fans are.
Go troll someplace else
CURSE YOU ENGADGET FOR DELETING THE COMMENT I RESPONDED TO!!
Now iv'e TRIPLE failed...
F-U
Maybe you should stop trying then....
Brought to by Verizon, crippling your cell phones since -----
That's the baffling thing...2009 has been the year of Verizon getting their shit together and not failing. They had an absolutely abysmal history of phone crippling, especially with WinMo devices. But their last crippled phone was my beloved Touch Pro at the end of 2008. in 2009 they released the Diamond uncrippled. And then they released patches to open up the GPS for the TP1 and other devices. And then they released the TP2, uncrippled, and *gasp* cheaper than other carriers...not a little, a LOT.
Also I have noticed they have done MAJOR 3G rollouts this year...I live in the middle of frickin nowhere, and I have 3G now. And not just in my hick town, but all the little podunk hick towns for 20-30 miles! Absolutely baffling. And they are on the brink of kicking 4G out the door.
And now they are *supporting* net neutrality? I am waiting for the sky to collapse and the apocalypse to hit any minute now.
And that little Droid thing is probably worth mentioning too. Verizon on the technical edge of phones is a VERY new concept...we're used to 12 month delays!
Really, the only thing you can complain about with Verizon are their somewhat higher prices for certain things, but damn if they don't at least attempt to justify them anymore.
I used to feel chained to VZW because coverage of other carriers either sucks or is nonexistant, eager for one of them to put a tower up so I could jump ship. But 2009 has made me actually -happy- to be a Verizon customer. It feels so wrong...but also so good at the same time.
eh, I forgive them for crippling my previous garbage winmo phones, since it seems like they're letting Droid rampage freely!
Their smartphones may be less crippled but their feature phones are still crippled last I checked.
Just another way to reduce competition in the marketplace. When government intervenes in the last open venue where free speech is truly free, poses a problem. "Net neutrality" is just a 21st century synonym for the fairness doctrine. I everyone is dazzled at the fact that, "yaay, we can openly bit torrent" however there's something more fundamental at stake. Beware.
You do realize you're 100% wrong right?
Obviously not. If you think I'm wrong then you should tell me why.
@Mike \
Before asking people to tell you why your wrong, how about making a coherent post in the first place. "....something more fundamental at stake. Beware". What the F are you talking about? Should I get my tin foil hat out or what?
@Mike
I *think* this is what you are talking about: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/net-neutrality-fcc-perils-and-promise
I respect the EFF, and there are some valid points here. They are not against Net Neutrality, but they are unsure about the FCC exercising authority over the net. The gist is that you might like what the current bureaucrats are saying, but what happens later (different administration) when you don't like it?
@ Mike - This is what you *should* have posted to make your point.
Because of you ridiculous comment that net neutrality is the internets "fairness doctrine" considering it's the exact complete opposite. As I've said before, turn off Glenn Beck and learn some facts,
Thanks Lens. @ Jackie: What does this have to do with Glenn Beck? You must be brainwashed by the typical progressive rhetoric. My issue is within the FCC and their adgenda. If you're comfortable with people inside the FCC who publically praised Hugo Chavez and their revolution to control the media then that's fine (google: Mark Lloyd). THESE ARE FACTS! Do some research! How much more coherency do you want? How many shady radicals will it take for you to understand that this administration isn't the biggest fan of the free market.
It's their adgenda that's troubling me. This Net Neutrality is simply a slippery slope and we shouldn't be putting this private industry in the hands of people who can't even manage a cash-for-clunkers program let alone the ENTIRE INTERNET . The last thing we need is the government regulating our internet connections.
I bring up Beck because you're using the same insane rhetoric as he has been all week.
So tell me how is net neutrality going to stifle free speech and bring about a "fairness doctrine"? Put down the Kool-Aid and maybe learn something. The FCC regulation is going to help. Without it there's nothing to stop say Microsoft from buying an ISP and blocking or throttling access to Google to customers etc....
So once again how is neutrality bad and going to stifle free speech? Oh because Beck told not to trust the big bad government? Well without them we'd have tainted drinking water and cars that would kill you easily.
And going the route of "OBAMA WANTS TO TAKE OVER THE COUNTRY AND MAKE US SOCIALIST!!!!", you've lost the argument just with that.
See Jackie, that's the beauty of the Free Market. If consumers don't like what Microsoft is doing with blocking access to Google, they will pack up and go else where to a company who doesn't do that. It's called competition. When the government get's involved playing a role of judge, jury and executioner, It takes away the competitive and innovative nature for those service providers to provide those goods and services. In the case of AT&T, they were so big that there needed to be a government induced break up because no competition could get into the markets. In this case, there is much competition and low barriers to entry where any regulation at this point would be dangerous for the market place. It's called the deregulation paradox. Let's just let the consumer market decide what they want.
Even the NAACP is against these policies:
Greg More of the NAACP voter fund made these statements about Net Neutrality:
"Given the proven impact of broadband prices on its adoption, policies that increase the cost to users should be forbidden. Now, some well-intentioned online activists are pushing regulations called "net neutrality," which would keep costs low for the large Internet content companies but shift the costs of network expansion mostly to consumers."
"The effects could be disastrous for low-income and minority communities, pricing them out of the broadband market by guaranteeing a free ride to companies such as Google and eBay while shifting costs for broadband expansion back to consumers. Although net neutrality activists claim to be protecting free speech, net neutrality regulations would effectively silence many minority voices, as low-income communities drop off the online landscape because they can't afford the price of admission."
Why would you want to support policies that hurt low-income African American People? I'm dissapointed in you Jackie...
On a side note:
I think it's funny that progressives throw such a hissy fit when one man gets up to speak his mind. It's like you're trying to.... wait... what's that??? Silence opposition!!!? Noo. That could never happen in Obama's land of gumdrops and lollipops.
It's just one man and a microphone. Why is he such a threat to you? Why does he anger you? Some of my friends vomit instantaneously when I say the word "Beck". I don't vomit when I hear the word "Bill Mahr" even though I know he has some wrong ideas; I at least listen to them and consider. I know you say that Beck is a fearmonger, tyrant, zealot etc... but why? It's easy to isolate and ridicule someone if you feel threatened but what has this man said that offends you? He's only exposed some of the most radical Marxist, Communist and Maoist Progressives that have ever walked through the corridors of the White House. I thought progressives such as yourself (and I'm labeling you a progressive because you support and administration that integegrates marxist idealism into American Policy.) should be free thinking and accepting of all ideas and opinions.
Until all corporate influence is removed from the pockets of the politicians, every action the government undertakes should be suspect.
Here's another "beauty" of "free market". In the absence of government intervention, a few big corporations are able to buy over everyone else, in effect establishing a monopoly or oligopoly. They end up forming a government upon themselves. See the food industry (only a few big players) and their puppets at the USFDA. The problem here is we don't elect them, we can't go "somewhere else" since they're the only ones providing the service. Similar cartels are formed in the cable industry, cell phone industry in Canada, there are many other examples.
You're quick to point out the "beauty" of free market, but somehow the "beauty of democracy" evades you. If the big bad government starts censoring the Web, we can vote them out, ie, "go somewhere else". Can't do the same to the big bad corporations.
You're also forgetting that it was the U.S. government that controlled the Internet from the start in one capacity or the other. Can you cite some examples of it somehow censoring the Web in the past 25 years???
@ SuperTroll
F@#K OFF! SuperTroll!
WE ALL HATE YOU
(this article has nothing to do with Microsoft)
huh.
SuperTroll went away & now I look stupid
huh Microsoft does suck
Android is on Verizon phones and people are amazed at Google and Verizon getting together on anything?
Seriously, I'm confused here. Don't these guys talk?
http://news.idg.no/cw/art.cfm?id=77D105CD-1A64-6A71-CE7D81ADE876A40D
Ditto. I was just reading everywhere else about how Verizon Chairman Ivan Seidenberg was slamming the FCC's Network Neutrality Rules. Are they playing good cop/bad cop or something?
I've always thought highly of Verizon's FiOS service, and their open stance ("no need for throttling here!") in Comparison to Comcast (so so), Time Warner (really bad) and others (often worse). Yet here they are spotting off in public about something their customers clearly want. Personally I'm less inclined to buy service from them in the future as a result of this. I hope they know that some of us will have this sort of reaction.
And to those who were looking forward to the iPhone on Verizon's network--this is who you're hoping to be friends with. Maybe we should all calm down and give AT&T a little credit if they can keep their own mouth shut on the issue for 5 MINUTES! (hint hint)
It doesn't seem like it. I guess that VZW doesn't feel the same way about it as the big VZ does.
Torrenting isn't as big of a problem on mobile networks.
and you PC/anti iPhone fanboys were prasing Verizon the last 2 days haha
Maybe Google can convince Verizon to go with cell neutrality as well. Landlines used to be controlled by the carrier so when MaBell said you could only use MaBell phones in your house you had to pay for MaBell phones. This was deemed illegal for over two decades and yet for some reason the law hasn't caught up with cell providers such as Verizon and Sprint who require you to buy their phones to use on their networks even though technically a Sprint phone would work fine on Verizon's network and vice versa. There is no valid reason for locking us in to carrier phones.
We could get much more advanced phones a year in advance if they weren't crippled by the carrier after a year of "testing" so they could put their adware on them.
I'm not suggesting Verizon and Sprint couldn't sell phones just as ATT and TMobile do but those networks also allow you to put any compatable phone you want on them as well so you don't have to buy a new phone if you have a phone that works with their network cell technology.
Circumstance makes strange bedfellows.
conflicting news anyone?
Verizon CEO bitching about the new regulations by the FCC:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-10379932-266.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
That's the VZ communications guy bitching.
The VZW guy is pretty chill.
Time for Google to put its money where its mouth is and stop blocking Google Voice calls.
": they generally acknowledge that a free, unhindered internet has led to a better world and that it's in everyone's best interest to make sure that it continues to be that way. "
This administration thinks otherwise...they will regulate or use the old mantra of fairness or hate speech legislation to screw it up.