From the NYTimes, Google and Verizon Near Deal on Pay Tiers for Web:
WASHINGTON — Google and Verizon, two leading players in Internet service and content, are nearing an agreement that could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content’s creators are willing to pay for the privilege.
The charges could be paid by companies, like YouTube, owned by Google, for example, to Verizon, one of the nation’s leading Internet service providers, to ensure that its content received priority as it made its way to consumers. The agreement could eventually lead to higher charges for Internet users.
Such an agreement could overthrow a once-sacred tenet of Internet policy known as net neutrality, in which no form of content is favored over another. In its place, consumers could soon see a new, tiered system, which, like cable television, imposes higher costs for premium levels of service.
Any agreement between Verizon and Google could also upend the efforts of the Federal Communications Commission to assert its authority over broadband service, which was severely restricted by a federal appeals court decision in April.
Ahhh, yes, let’s not make the ISPs upgrade their infrastructure, which we pay additional fees and taxes for them to do anyway. No, let’s fork even MORE of our money over to them so we can read our favorite blogs and news.
But here’s the really evil part of the arrangement. The parties involved say they are only referring to cell phone transmission, not regular ethernet.
Except that the future is in iPad type devices, which are just big cell phones. Oh, sure, you can still use wifi with them but their big draw is that you can take them anywhere.
THAT’S where this deal is going to bite us in the ass. I already spend far too much on cell service between my iPad and iPhone. Now, not only will android phones have to pay more, their content will stream differently. This is not a slippery slope we want to go down.
Net neutrality has been stabbed in the back over a cell phone war.
Filed under: General | Tagged: Google, net neutrality, stab us in the back, verizon |
The Confluence 
This is from a “there, there, it’s not so bad” spin on the Google-Verizon deal, but I found this part interesting:
Um, when they say it’s not about the money, it’s about them money.
This smells like privatizing the internet. I’m agin it.
When I say I found it interesting, I meant in a negative way–as in look what they are up to. I’m against it too.
Yeah, I know.
But here’s the really evil part of the arrangement. The parties involved say they are only referring to cell phone transmission, not regular ethernet.
Except that the future is in iPad type devices, which are just big cell phones. Oh, sure, you can still use wifi with them but their big draw is that you can take them anywhere.
THAT’S where this deal is going to bite us in the ass. I already spend far too much on cell service between my iPad and iPhone. Now, not only will android phones have to pay more, their content will stream differently. This is not a slippery slope we want to go down.
Give me a C!
Give me an A!
Give me an R!
Give me a T!
Give me an E!
Give me a L!
What does that speelllllll??????????
(Btw, didn’t the oboti say way back when that a vote for BO was a vote for net neutrality?)
The charges could be paid by companies, like YouTube, owned by Google, for example, to Verizon, one of the nation’s leading Internet service providers, to ensure that its content received priority as it made its way to consumers. The agreement could eventually lead to higher charges for Internet users.
This is a mob protection rackett…like paying so they won’t smash up your beer joint…” You got nice content here. Be a shame if something was to….. happen to it….’
The agreement could eventually lead to higher charges for Internet users.
could? eventually? That’s like saying 2+2 will eventually lead to 4.
Ayup
Exactly — apparently “eventually” means in 5 minutes.
I will have to think about antitrust implications. Now that I have been laid off, I have more time to think.
djmm
The oligarchy put her on the world stage instead of the domestic stage:
Thanks for the vid! Frankly I think the world insisted on Hillary . There had to be someone who worked and answered a phone to deal with the actual governments over seas …not just corporation subsidiaries like us
I’m glad the world has her 🙂 I just wish we had her to help us make some waves on the domestic front right now too.
It reminds me of how jealous I was of NY for having her! lol!
Sorry about this OT comment, but I just popped over at FDL for a quick peek and all I saw were BP ads all over the page. Advertising your sell out quotient seems a bit crass to me, even for FDL…FireDog Lake.
I’m going to take a contrarian view here: there’s nothing wrong with plastering ads all over your site, even if you don’t particularly like the company. DailyKos used to run Exxon ads all the time and I didn’t see anything wrong with it. Companies should be able to approach you to advertise their stuff. The burden is on the consumer to click on the ad or not. The site makes money. It’s all tickety boo.
The problem arises when what you write becomes dependent on what people pay you to advertise. We saw this with TPM when Josh Marshall lost his neutrality and went fullforce negative against Clinton just about the time that Obama ads popped up on his site.
So, if blogging is your livelihood, you are in danger of falling into that trap. I think it’s rare that a blogger isn’t affected by the advertisers on his/her site. In principle, it shouldn’t have an effect but it frequently does.
How many BP stories won’t run because BP has it’s ad right in the middle of the page?(literally)….. It is one thing to run an ad promoting their company, but it another to run an ad that, IMHO, tells us that BP is doing everything possible to help the Gulf. When I first saw the one ad that is being promoted in a little blurb on FDL I thought it was a joke. It could have been shown on Saturday Night Live.
OT: Remember that corporation General Motors? The one the taxpayers bailed out, that disregarded bondholders legal claims in bankruptcy law, the one that thinks a $41,000 Chevy Volt will save them, the one that taxpayers still own?
From American Thinker article “GM announces major investment in auto plant (in Mexico)”:
“US automobile giant General Motors Co. said Tuesday it plans to invest close to $500 millio in its Ramos Arizpe plant in northern Mexico to produce a new line of engines as well as a new vehicle….
‘We estimate that these technologies allow for a 9% improvement in fuel efficiency from current engines,’ Leiblein said, adding that the investment will directly create 390 JOBS in Coahuila state.
Another $215 million will go toward upgrading the factory’s production lines to build a new vehicle for the domestic and international markets, she said, noting that the investment will be key to maintaining 400 jobs.”
YOUR taxpayer dollars, saving and creating JOBS in MEXICO.
Reckon Obama’s celebrating? Biden?
The current iteration of the Democratic Party won’t be happy until we are all living in company towns and shopping at the company store for company supplied products just like the the days of the Robber Barons.
The DNC should consider replacing the Jackass icon with the Monopoly guy wearing a black eye mask. It would be more appropriate since Reid, Pelosi, and Obama have sold their souls to the corporate devil.
Thank you for posting this. This move pissed me off.
And everyone thought Prince was the crazy one…
LOL
*cue Sign ‘O The Times*
I started getting nervous when you tub demanded me to log in with my google account. I have had the feeling of being penned in for years now.
A new wedding photo surfaced, now with more Hillary
OT http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entires/technology_bridge/
“This summer, we have been trying to answer the following question: What if we could use technology to bridge the gap between survivors and their deserved judicial and medical response? And what if we could do it in a way that enhances ongoing initiatives to strengthen the Congolese legal, police, and social service systems so that these kinds of crimes cease?”
It is an interesting read.
thx Minx… I have dipnote on my blog reader, but I might have missed that one this week if you had not pointed to it. This is an important read. Just quoting a snippet from the end:
That’s our Hillary! Go, Hillary, Go!
Your very welcome Wonk, I find my admiration for Hillary growing all the time.
My husband got the Droid X recently so I guess he’ll be one of the recipients of Verizin’s greed. He kept asking me if I wanted one. Now I get to choose between crappy tiered service from Comcast(our local cable cartel) or Verizon. Lucky,lucky me!
The sad part all this could go over night and with out notice and perhaps we would not met again . So let it been known in case I wake up one day and get a big error notice instead of a TC morning news round up,
: I cherish those on TC . Thank you all!
If the move away from net neutrality is a problem I have one partial solution:
Stop buying i-Devices.
Apple is a pioneer in denying net neutrality.
OK, that’s officially nuts. Apple has no say in net neutrality at this point. Back off the Apple hate please. We have a story about their competitor doing something really bad and you bring up Apple. Really?
How about we stop using Google?
I try to use both google and bing
There is a valid point there though. AT&T and Apple are pioneers on limiting access. In oorder to get an iphone you had to do business with AT&T. Then there is blocking Firefox, Voip. Apple is no angel.
By the way, AT&T is siding with Google and Verizon so it’s pretty much a given that this will apply to the iphone and Ipad.
Sadly since Comcast succeeded in its lawsuit I don’t see how we fix this.
No, there is no valid point here. The topic is about net neutrality. Apple has no involvement with any aspect of net neutrality. Period.
Of course ATT would side with them, as would any other member of the internet players that have an interest in stopping net neutrality.
Net neutrality involves not letting the people that run or have a major components of the internet change the rules so you are taxed differently based on what devices you use, who you connect with, or what you do on the internet (like who you do business with or what your political persuasion is). Those players would be all the telcos, cable companies, cell companies, and any major components of the internet like search (i.e., google).
Apple is just a computer maker, like Dell, like HP, etc. They aren’t involved in greater internet aspects like the main drivers of the internet (telcos, cable), ISP’s, or search engines/portals.
As for them limiting access, in the US, the laws and regulations are designed around access carrier monopolies. Many countries in the world do not allow such things. iPhones are sold unlocked and available to any carrier in those countries. The nature of the cell carrier universe at the time to came out was such that it was impossible to be on multiple carriers. They tried. Verizon and the other players would not allow them to be on more than one carrier. When the came out it was unheard of that you would by a phone directly, then select a carrier. Before that you bought from carriers and had to choose what they offered.
All that is changing. Finally. And you will see Apple’s products on multiple carriers in the US soon. None of that was every Apple’s preference.
Apple has a relationship with AT&T exclusively and the idea that they are unaware and have no influence on their partnership is absurd.
You’re joking, right?
*****A
Apple has a relationship with AT&T exclusively and the idea that they are unaware and have no influence on their partnership is absurd.
Of course they have influence with their partnership. Bit of a strawman. But they don’t have influence in what they do with their network. In fact you’ll probably see them vote with their feet because they don’t have the influence they’d like.
Again, exclusivity was never their choice.
You’re joking, right?
Nope, I’d put Apple in the same category as Sony. They both make consumer electronics (computers, phones, music dev., etc.). To scream at them because they won’t let Dell make “Apple computers” like some do here is the same as screaming at Sony for not letting Dell make “Sony TVs” using Sony’s specs, and internal OS/driver/tuner software, and all the application software for channel guides and the like.
Similarly they’re not in the same category as AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc. And they don’t run any major internet functionality like a search engine.
They do run a music store like Amazon. But that commerce like most other ecommerce systems does not make them a net neutrality player.
That’s not to say those things can’t change. Apple could get into the “cloud” business and be involved in media streaming in some big way and all of the sudden be closer to the net neutrality boys. It could happen. But without that, they’re just not in that game.
As sad as it is, this isn’t a surprising move given the, albeit small, search increases by Bing and Yahoo. Google has to continue to feed the insatiable appetite of the Wall Street analysts in order to feed the beast. There will be more of these trial balloons because the ISP’s will be positively giddy to have something to offer as price point differentiators within their price gouging structures.
, the one that thinks a $41,000 Chevy Volt will save them, the one that taxpayers still own?
*********
The high tech/high cost part of the Volt are the batteries and controllers….Developed by a South Korean company and will be manufactured in Korea.
and if they didn’t manufacture overseas then there would be whining about GM’s competitiveness.
The trade laws need to be fixed. Until then blaming a company that now has enormous pressure to perform well or die(which I’m sure would make the GOP enormously happy)is counterproductive.
As RD says: or we could use wifi. You know why it’s not everywhere? Because every time a municipality tries to create municipal wifi Big Phone/Cable/Search/Whatever is there with an army of lawyers, guns, and money, stopping them.
And if there were ever a federal attempt at nationwide wifi, we’d be deafened by the Telcos screaming.
Anti-net neutrality is an evil wherever it’s done. But wifi could be a workaround if we could get it.
Absolutely. Good point. Many cities have tried to set up free wifi for their community, only to be shut down by the government. Often Dems. When a phone or cable company talks, everyone listens.
Wifi still has to go somewhere. Most everything on a wireless network is routed out to interent pipelines. Unless there was a large peer-to-peer network or large caching, wifi is just a transport technology. It would be cheaper for a municipal utility to wire everyone in a community to wired ethernet.
Laying fiber can be expensive. Putting up a pile of wifi antennas even though wired to a central office I think would be cheaper. Unless the city runs the local phone infrastructure and already has much of the infrastructure together. I think the backbone to manage it all (the ISP) would be the same either way.
Then the fiber has to be laid to a central office from the wireless routers.
I guess it depends on the application. If you want to blanket the town in wifi antennas so anyone on the street can get it, then it’s a massive project. If you only want to wire businesses and municipal buildings, wifi is an easy option.
Good point. Usually municipalities only cover “downtown”. If you really want to cover a large region, then that gets tricker. I’ve seen some do the latter, but usually they cover areas one small area at a time and take years.
Of course when we get 4G, both wifi and the lame excuse for an internet we get from telcos and cables will fall by the wayside. Unless they step up to 100Mbs range really quickly.
What’s particularly outrageous (speaking as someone who has been on the InterTubez since they were known as the “Arpanet”) is that the entire infrastructure of the Internet was developed by the Government at taxpayer expense – only to have it converted into a corporate oligopoly.
Yup. And I think taxpayer money paid for most all the telco infrastructure is has been built on from that point as well. It’s ours. Just like the airwaves are ours. Funny how we have to fight to have any semblance of fairness through either.
Countdown: Net Neutrality imperiled as Congress, The President, the FCC hide