Net Neutrality Crusaders Slam Verizon, Google

It looks as though everyone absolutely hates the net neutrality proposal Google and Verizon announced earlier today. That has to be some kind of record doesn’t it? Pissing off the entire internet community in 3 hours flat. Nice.

There was almost no positive response from Net neutrality supporters on the proposal. But the biggest disappointment for Net neutrality supporters appears to be the fact that Google and Verizon agreed that new regulation or Net neutrality laws should not apply equally to wireless networks.

Click to expand...

"These companies say that wireless networks differ from wireline broadband networks because bandwidth is more limited on a wireless network. Imposing new rules on how carriers operate their wireless networks would stifle investment, they argue."

The problem with these companies is that they have Knowledge to technology that the consumer isn't aware of coming down the pipe. So when they bring in statements of " bandwidth is more limited on a wireless network." tells me that wireless speed will definitely increase in the near future. As a consumer I want wireless to be looked at as a necessity just like the landline. These companies are already saying that cell phones will replace landlines as the standard in the near future and they just don't plain want to be regulated as such. They want to getaway with what their doing with the wired broadband, and guess what, more people are unhappy then are happy with the throttling and capping and so on and so on.Well piss on them. Consumers better take notice because the rules are being written and re written as we speak, behind closed doors to the benefit of, guess who and it isn't the consumer.

where do i vote against them?

Down with Verizon and Google. May they burn from the heat of a CPU that just had its fan fail!

Uncle said:

The problem with these companies is that they have Knowledge to technology that the consumer isn't aware of coming down the pipe.

Click to expand...

This is what totally confuses me. I can only see packet qos being necessary on real-time services like voip or iptv. Google keeps saying they want to 'speed up the internet' possibly to reduce the latency of cloud apps. Then ballmer comes to UW and squaws about the azure transition. Bunch of junk all the real nerds like the ones at ibm/parc are totally against networked services. It just doesn't make sense it's inherently slower no way which you slice it or how fast you want it to become.

Seems like a waste of time, money and effort to me. Why they are still pursuing these services boggles me.

There have already been numerous reports about how bandwidth prices are dropping for carriers.. wireless or landline... their costs are not going up... their employees are not significantly rising... and most of them arent spending enormous amounts on their infrasructure like they did over the last decade... so there is zero reason for them to charge the prices they charge...then throw on a $ charge that you have to have if you have a smart phone for bandwidth...

Do cell phones use a ridiculous amount of bandwidth? Im guessing they do... but thats only because 9/10 of all the apps out there have nothing but tracking and information gathering tools embedded int he programming to begin with... its not the consumers fault.. its the app makers fault.. and the carriers fault for allowing that..but they make big bucks off of selling the user information, and get a cut off of third party apps... of course they dont want it regulated... its an extra source of income that isnt specifically reported on their earnings.. its thrown into something else.. god only knows what...

SS_Wehrwolf said:

Do cell phones use a ridiculous amount of bandwidth? Im guessing they do... but thats only because 9/10 of all the apps out there have nothing but tracking and information gathering tools embedded int he programming to begin with... its not the consumers fault.. its the app makers fault.. and the carriers fault for allowing that..but they make big bucks off of selling the user information, and get a cut off of third party apps... of course they dont want it regulated... its an extra source of income that isnt specifically reported on their earnings.. its thrown into something else.. god only knows what...

Click to expand...

I have a G1 that I got off craigslist for $50 to avoid having to pay for the monthly internet fee. Smart phone can function just fine without it. I use it to play games from emulators, and I use iGo for GPS. When I need the internet, I simply activate my wifi and join a hotspot.

Android is deceptively designed to work with the internet. To activate my G1 I needed an internet connection, but I don't have one and there way no option to get on wifi. There needed to be a roundabout way of getting wifi working to activate, which is mostly a hack.

Then there's the apps. I use Astro to manage files and Taskiller to close lingering apps. At first, there were free versions of these apps that were just limited. Eventually the apps got advertisements that needed an active internet connection, which made me happy for not having one. Now those apps automatically open a web page when they detect there isn't a working internet connection.

Luckily, there's totally free alternatives to these apps, but its stupid how they enforce that these devices must have a internet connection. Of course these apps are using bandwidth, which lately is the thing that's mostly in jeopardy. If you're on AT&T then running applications can consume your precious and limited bandwidth.

Everyone has it wrong. Skynet isn't coming. It's here already. It just has a different name.

I am looking forward to the world ending in a couple of years.

no one ever told me what to do when I was energy roaming around the universe.

Here comes internet 2 down our throats with tiered access and private companies decideding what you can see and what you can't

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-silver/google-verizon-deal-the-e_b_671617.html

I love the author's note exposing the hypocracy of Google in the face of mass profit.

"Author's note: Notice how a company can change their tune in the name of profitmaking. From Google in 2006: "Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody - no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional - has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can't pay."

Ashbringer said:

Down with Verizon and Google. May they burn from the heat of a CPU that just had its fan fail!

Click to expand...

LOL, fry that puppy, fry it!

Verizon/Google: "All networks should be neutral, but some networks should be more neutral than others".