@ctmike78 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.
@iPhooey They haven't done anything wrong yet. But the possiblity for wrong doing in the future has just been made HUGE. While there will always be a place in the world for wired internet (it will always be faster). The future of computing is wimax and LTE, ie -> 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.
@dagetz 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.
@iPhooey Just because they are being open doesn't make what they are doing right. I agree it makes it better but it really doesn't make it right. Also for verizon to have such a huge name such as google backing them its gonna start companies trying to put more restrictions on their networks. Like I said it is a very dodgy road that Google are taking us down and I would have hoped that Google would have been more responsible and concerned about their consumers then this.
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.
"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.
@cbiscuit What on Earth are you talking about? Either you work for an ISP or you've been reading the Wall Street Journal a little too much. Net Neutrality is good for consumers, no questions asked. Good government regulation is required to keep industries from damaging consumers, ie financial depression/BP oil spill.
@iPhooey 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.
@dagetz Seriously. I usually love Google, but there are some definite shenanigans going on here. I'm glad that the FCC came back with "F*ck you guys, we're the FCC, b*tches" I'm glad that they actually kinda do want to look out for us, the consumers (voters/citizens/whatever)
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.
@iPhooey It's amazing isn't it? I watch companies bend over the consumer everyday and the consumer smiles and asks for more. Out of the blue a couple of companies does something that while it still keeps their profits in line actually lines up with the interests of the consumer and all of a sudden people are skeptical.
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.
@dagetz 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.
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?
@bobbyk18 I didn't read anywhere in these proposals that individual websites were now going to start getting slapped with 2m fines. Carriers and ISPs will, not websites. Also, ISP and wireless are already INCREDIBLY prohibitive to startups anyway, since you need a massive and costly infrastructure to make any money at all. Also, these proposals would help startup companies! Thats the point of net neutrality, a new company won't get its bandwidth squeezed by google or other major websites.
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.
@dagetz Agreed. Excluding wireless networks from this provision is a loophole you could drive a truck through. It's also amusing that Googerizon is asking the FCC to accept a regulatory framework that removes their rule making power.
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.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Dodgy territory :(. I would have thought google would have been more responsible about this
@dagetz
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.
@ctmike78
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.
@iPhooey They haven't done anything wrong yet. But the possiblity for wrong doing in the future has just been made HUGE. While there will always be a place in the world for wired internet (it will always be faster). The future of computing is wimax and LTE, ie -> 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.
@dagetz
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.
@iPhooey Just because they are being open doesn't make what they are doing right. I agree it makes it better but it really doesn't make it right. Also for verizon to have such a huge name such as google backing them its gonna start companies trying to put more restrictions on their networks. Like I said it is a very dodgy road that Google are taking us down and I would have hoped that Google would have been more responsible and concerned about their consumers then this.
@iPhooey
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.
@cbiscuit
"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.
@cbiscuit What on Earth are you talking about? Either you work for an ISP or you've been reading the Wall Street Journal a little too much. Net Neutrality is good for consumers, no questions asked. Good government regulation is required to keep industries from damaging consumers, ie financial depression/BP oil spill.
@cbiscuit
Government regulation is bad derp. That's why they don't regulate lead based paints and the food we eat for quality assurance derp.
@iPhooey
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.
@dagetz Seriously. I usually love Google, but there are some definite shenanigans going on here. I'm glad that the FCC came back with "F*ck you guys, we're the FCC, b*tches" I'm glad that they actually kinda do want to look out for us, the consumers (voters/citizens/whatever)
@iPhooey
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.
@iPhooey It's amazing isn't it? I watch companies bend over the consumer everyday and the consumer smiles and asks for more. Out of the blue a couple of companies does something that while it still keeps their profits in line actually lines up with the interests of the consumer and all of a sudden people are skeptical.
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.
@dagetz
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.
@Blaque14K
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?
@bobbyk18 I didn't read anywhere in these proposals that individual websites were now going to start getting slapped with 2m fines. Carriers and ISPs will, not websites. Also, ISP and wireless are already INCREDIBLY prohibitive to startups anyway, since you need a massive and costly infrastructure to make any money at all. Also, these proposals would help startup companies! Thats the point of net neutrality, a new company won't get its bandwidth squeezed by google or other major websites.
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.
@dagetz Agreed. Excluding wireless networks from this provision is a loophole you could drive a truck through. It's also amusing that Googerizon is asking the FCC to accept a regulatory framework that removes their rule making power.
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.