http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/ Engadget Comments for Google and Verizon's net neutrality proposal explained http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/Aug 9th 2010 5:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/Aug 9th 2010 5:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/Aug 9th 2010 5:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/Aug 9th 2010 6:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/Aug 9th 2010 6:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/Aug 9th 2010 6:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/
They are pretty much right on Status Quo and you say fuck them?
After reading it I am pretty convinced that this is a good thing. Sure the Wireless thing is a bit controversial, however, I too am not for Net Neutrality on the wireless spectrum. But I'm pretty sure this is exactly what most people wanted out of this bill, why are we bitching? ]]>Aug 9th 2010 6:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/Big Red and Big Brother spearheading "net neutrality"? May God save us.]]>Aug 9th 2010 6:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/Please tell me that just because you used the word Big twice, they are now considered bad companies.

Big red means nothing.
Big brother has no real basis beyond what every site does regarding data. Facebook does it just as much. ]]>Aug 9th 2010 6:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/lololololol]]>Aug 9th 2010 6:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S6RgSpnb0w]]>Aug 9th 2010 6:33PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/Aug 9th 2010 6:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/Who the hell are you!
What do you mean this is what we wanted? I didn't even know what was happening you lemming!
Verizon and Google have crafted shit so they can bank big money from the consumer. All that jargon they wrote has the devil in the details and if you can't decipher it then you're fucked right up the ass homeboy!
There was nothing wrong with me surfing the net before but since Google and Verizon have to get that stock up they'll do anything and I mean anything they can to do it.
One more thing, this topic is beyond the scope for most of you so-called techies. Go root your fucking Android EVO!
]]>Aug 9th 2010 7:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/
Okay, Mr. Techie,
DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT THIS DOES?
Didn't think so. Stop Google hating for no real reason and start coming back here with some actual facts.

Net Neutrality is not a new thing and was never originally their idea, they only backed it before. But unlike some companies (Apple and Microsoft) not every company is focused more on there temporary stock prices over their long term evolution

Google makes money out of openness, they expand the market so they can make more money off the expansion of it. This helps everyone involved; Google sells more ads, advertisers get their products more out there, and customers get to enjoy a huge variety of free services. ]]>Aug 9th 2010 7:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/Verizon Wireless (errr, just Verizon?) is referred to as Big Red namely due to the fact that it is the largest cell phone provider (by # of subscribers) in the US, and their primary color is red. Enough said.

Google is so ingrained into programs these days that they most likely have most of your personal information, and use their site-tracking to use that information against you (e.g. getting ads targeted towards websites you go to or where you're located). Facebook only tracks the things you do on their site and partner sites, but not necessarily ALL websites or things you search for on the web.

With these two drawing up a proposal that could attract millions more customers, there could be some cause for concern. It all sounds good on paper, just like communism did in Eastern Europe/Asia, but until it is implemented will we really understand the full scope of these new guidelines (Disclaimer: NOT comparing VZW/Google to communism in any way; providing relevant analogy).]]>Aug 9th 2010 7:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/
"Google is so ingrained into programs these days that they most likely have most of your personal information, and use their site-tracking to use that information against you (e.g. getting ads targeted towards websites you go to or where you're located)."

Why is this a bad thing? What the hell do you think is considered "your personal information". Do you think that they are hiring people to follow you around and become friends with you solely to figure out what you like and sell ad space? No.

Targeted ads are NOT A BAD THING. It's more efficient than some guy having 20 ads about Victoria Secrets. ]]>Aug 9th 2010 7:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/
Regarding the wireless network issue, consider it this way: Every phone call is VOIP. Therefore, in a high-congestion or crisis situation where tons of people are on their phones at once, resources must be devoted more towards VOIP and less regular data. The wired internet both doesn't incur this strain and is not used in the way that wireless internet is used.

Wired internet doesn't suddenly have thousands more people suddenly move into an area, putting increased strain on the network. Wireless does. That "openness" does need to be in there, though, as currently these companies can change your service without notifying you (if you agreed to it in the TOS).]]>Aug 9th 2010 8:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/
Well I agree that there are some practice purposes for this too, but I don't think that is the case because not every phone is VoIP, actually VoIP is stuff like Skype and FaceTime, however there are some VoIP phones that have a duel mode with a regular cellular radio and a Wi-Fi (802.11 b/g) radio which you could use with stuff like HotSpot@Home.

Regardless, I really want to know what real disadvantages you guys see here? Where is the customer really losing practice power? is it the fact that they aren't regulating mobile yet? Because thats more due to status quo than anything else. ]]>Aug 9th 2010 8:14PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/
Nononono. You don't understand. The phone LITERALLY carries the call as DATA. That's why it's DIGITAL instead of ANALOG. This is considered VOIP, and thus must be able to be prioritized when the network gets overloaded in a particular location.

(Hint: I agree with you. I do think that there needs to be a hole left for future legislation regarding not filtering or prioritizing web data that IS NOT phone calls. But otherwise, this is an excellent step forward and I think everyone just wants to hate it just to hate it. AKA Derp government is bad derp. They don't need to be regulating things derp.)

http://i.imgur.com/sDkuZ.jpg]]>Aug 9th 2010 8:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/I love how just a few days ago, Google denined even talking to Verizon and today both Google and Verizon is trying to help "protect" net neutrality.]]>Aug 9th 2010 9:06PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/I don't know what kind of guy you are, but getting 20 Victoria's Secret ads would be TONS better than getting 20 about (unnecessary) penis enlargement.]]>Aug 9th 2010 9:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/
No, I do understand. Cell phones are still on radio. Look it up. VoIP is only used on skype calls.

http://communication.howstuffworks.com/ip-telephony9.htm]]>Aug 9th 2010 10:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/Google doesn't post sensitive targetting ads. Look it up.
If you are getting Penis Enlargement ads, its not from Google. Nice try tho.]]>Aug 9th 2010 10:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH]]>Aug 9th 2010 10:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/
I'm talking about the backbone. Yes, cell phones use radios to communicate to towers, but it uses that same method to transfer data. Once both data and phone call get to the tower, it's routed via VOIP to the appropriate destination. Since both data and cell phone calling use the same type of data transfer, wireless companies have to be able to distinguish between phones trying to connect to data and those who are trying to make/receive a phone call.

I think we're understanding the same thing, but there's a slight miscommunication lol.

@MikeyMike01

You're kidding me, right?

When the FCC was trying to come up with rules by themselves, people said OMG GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION! Then, when companies themselves work to keep the internet a dumb pipe, people say OMG BEND OVER AND TAKE IT FROM THE CORPORATIONS!

Do tell us the solution then. Tell us how companies can be regulated without either the government or the companies themselves.]]>Aug 9th 2010 10:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/It was a joke dude. Relax. Don't take stuff on the internet so seriously.]]>Aug 9th 2010 11:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/"rule the air", Verizon. Hmmm...]]>Aug 10th 2010 12:54AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/Aug 10th 2010 1:03AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/
GOOGLE wants a closed network. How ironic!



]]>Aug 10th 2010 2:26AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/They didn't deny talking to Verizon. Atleast not a few days ago.
They denied selling out on Net Neutrality what in my opinion they are doing right now.

This proposal has too many loopholes.
* ISPs can't block legal content. What's legal? Is Wikileaks still legal?
* ISP's can't discriminate network traffic but can "argue some exceptions"
* Fine of violation of this is a measly 2 million dollar.
* Wireless traffic won't be regulated because of "technical difficulties". Why exactly? And for how long won't it be regulated?

This thing does more bad than good. It allows ISPs to utilize the loopholes in this proposal and at the same time hide behind it under the cover of "We support net neutrality!".

I have usually supported Google. I never made a big deal about their privacy policy but this proposal is just wrong.

]]>Aug 10th 2010 3:43AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/Lord, do you ever get sarcastic remarks? :|]]>Aug 10th 2010 12:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/Aug 17th 2010 10:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/Aug 9th 2010 5:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/Taking a page from Apple's definition of "openness"... ie, only to the extent that it suits them, and in a way that they control.]]>Aug 9th 2010 6:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/Please enlighten us on how they doing us as a consumer wrong? Seems that every point they are making is in the interest of the consumer. I would worry more about your carriers/companies that don't want to discuss their plans and rule you with an iron fist.]]>Aug 9th 2010 6:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/ wireless. This deal is the wireless providers attempting to leave themselves MUCH more flexibility so they don't end up in the same situation as the wired networks did, that they dont have the power to control the content that they distribute as an ISP. This means that in future if this deal goes unchallenged that it is almost a certainity that consumers will NOT have access to the full internet on wireless providers.]]>Aug 9th 2010 6:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/The point is they are disclosing their proposal upfront are part of their move for companies to be transparent with their actions (which happens to also be in their proposal). Although I get the "fear" part in what they are stating because it's all still very conceptual (with a lot of doublespeak), I applaud the fact that they are disclosing their intentions unlike other carriers / companies. Like the author states, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile have no choice now but to weigh in on this discussion and we shall see then if the hate is evenly dispersed.]]>Aug 9th 2010 6:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/Aug 9th 2010 6:53PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/
They're doing the consumer wrong because they're trying to use government to regulate a private industry in such a way that suits their particular needs. This will lead to higher costs, and have unanticipated consequences.

Part of the reason that ISP's are able to give us the prices that they currently are is because they practice bandwidth discrimination. They will just pass on the costs incurred by net neutrality regulation to the consumer.

Also, this is a pretty obvious trojan horse for government to get control of the internet. Being able to regulate how ISP's conduct their business will no doubt lead to more regulation. Look at what government has done to the healthcare, housing, and education industries, all industries which have been heavily regulated or subsidized and essentially crippled in the past 50 years. That's hardly the direction we need to take the internet in.

I prefer the free and affordable internet that the market currently provides me. Net neutrality will only hurt that.]]>Aug 9th 2010 7:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/
"They're doing the consumer wrong because they're trying to use government to regulate a private industry in such a way that suits their particular needs. This will lead to higher costs, and have unanticipated consequences."

You're saying that doing something could make bad things happen? Yeah, I think that's true for everything in life. Unless you can specify, that's just a bogeyman tactic.

"Part of the reason that ISP's are able to give us the prices that they currently are is because they practice bandwidth discrimination. They will just pass on the costs incurred by net neutrality regulation to the consumer."

Most ISPs DO NOT practice bandwidth discrimination. People noticed when Comcast did because it was very much slower. This legislation keeps it so that the ISPs cannot throttle and discriminate based on so-called "illegal" data. The internet must continue being a dumb pipe.

"Also, this is a pretty obvious trojan horse for government to get control of the internet. Being able to regulate how ISP's conduct their business will no doubt lead to more regulation."
Slippery slope argument. Logical fallacy, thus thrown out the window.

"Look at what government has done to the healthcare, housing, and education industries, all industries which have been heavily regulated or subsidized and essentially crippled in the past 50 years. That's hardly the direction we need to take the internet in. "
Housing was deregulated before the bubble burst. It was the fact that nobody was being held accountable for their actions with less regulation that led to the sub-prime mortgage crisis. This entire bubble was caused by UNREGULATED capitalism. Don't go blaming this on regulation.

"I prefer the free and affordable internet that the market currently provides me. Net neutrality will only hurt that."

You prefer the internet where it's totally legal for private companies to purchase slots with the ISPs that make their data load faster than others, thus pushing out other companies? The internet must continue to be a dumb pipe, and that's just what this legislation is.


On a separate note regarding the wireless network issue, consider it this way: Every phone call is VOIP. Therefore, in a high-congestion or crisis situation where tons of people are on their phones at once, resources must be devoted more towards VOIP and less regular data. The wired internet both doesn't incur this strain and is not used in the way that wireless internet is used.]]>Aug 9th 2010 7:58PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/Aug 9th 2010 8:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/
Government regulation is bad derp. That's why they don't regulate lead based paints and the food we eat for quality assurance derp. ]]>Aug 9th 2010 8:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/Basically what they're doing is attempting to force regulation which would leave them various loopholes and low fines in order to allow the established Internet entities to stay in power($2m is nothing to Google), while creating large barriers(bandwidth, fines of $2m are a lot to startups) to stifle anyone from creating the next youtube, slacker radio, pitchfork.tv, or any other high bandwidth site without a large amount of bureaucracy(quarterly FCC meetings and then the further say of a group of corporations) while also taking away the governance of the FCC and putting legislative power into the hands of large companies like Google and Verizon.

The end goal is to keep an oligopoly of Verizon, Google, AT&T, Microsoft, Etc. at the forefront of the internet while preventing upstarts like last.fm, pandora, various video sites, etc from starting up with a decent headway or even knowledge that their site will be allowed to remain once it grows to a size that the 'Internet council' doesn't like.]]>Aug 9th 2010 8:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/Aug 9th 2010 8:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/
I never claimed consumers were being harmed, but make no mistake - Google and Verizon are looking out for *their* interests, not ours. Their interest is to make money. Google wants to sell as many ads as possible; that's clear. I'd suspect that "new services" means "new advertising opportunities" for Google - they are trying to lay the groundwork to dominate what's next, and not just what's right now.

As for Verizon, they are doing everything in their power not to become a "dumb pipe"... even though I think there are quite a few people who would be just fine with that. A year or two from now, I'd love to cancel my home phone and internet, and just rely on the LTE data that will be available through my cell phone. Heck, all you will really need is LTE data, no need for traditional cell minute plans, either. This future does not make Verizon, nor it's shareholders happy.

That said, I use plenty of Google services and was a happy Verizon customer for years... what are you gonna do.]]>Aug 9th 2010 8:30PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/
Look folk nobody is saying that the companies aren't in it for themsleves. But this is a step in a good direction for the consumer and actually democracy as a whole but most people haven't thought anywhere close to that far down the line unfortunately. But anyone that's paid attention to Google knows they drive the market not by trying to lock out but by trying to open up more people to ride on theory services. For instance they need html 5 to advance theory services. They could have just put out a locked down Chrome and locked you into using it by progressively requiring it for their services. But instead they try to push everyone to adopt open standards and then compete on merit. Meanwhile the people complaining are on an OS that they could barely get off of if they wanted to because of a company that they actually need to watch closely but instead cheer them on for locking you down. ]]>Aug 9th 2010 8:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/My name is porkchop flavored cupcake, and I approve of your message
However, Google did not approve and by 8am tomorrow morning they will remove it.]]>Aug 9th 2010 9:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/
Hmm .. I see you enjoy being bend over and f... Do you read the article? It will exclude wireless vendor from net neutrality. I see how much your love to google so you probably dont mind to give them your soul but most people wont. By the way, Chrome is a browser based OS and who do you think it benefits? ]]>Aug 9th 2010 10:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/
These proposals are certainly a mixed bag, more FCC control with bigger fines and a plan for wireless carriers to remain neutral with some ability to prioritize basic connectivity (voice, txts, email) over media would be welcome.]]>Aug 10th 2010 10:36AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/
This whole things reeks of fascism to me. The government needs to issue the net neutrality rule on the corporations, not the other way around.]]>Aug 10th 2010 10:46AM