Home | Blog | Software | Reviews and Features | Forum | Help | Donate | About us
topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • December 10, 2016, 04:31:23 PM
  • Proudly celebrating 10 years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Last post Author Topic: On the Web: Google net neutrality stance gives Net’s future to corporations  (Read 11098 times)

mouser

  • First Author
  • Administrator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 36,435
    • View Profile
    • Mouser's Software Zone on DonationCoder.com
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Interesting read:

Quote
We should have stopped believing the "don’t be evil" hype some years ago. Google has long asked to be treated as something special. But it’s special in only one way: its capacity for audacity.



from http://www.boingboing.net/

Gothi[c]

  • DC Server Admin
  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Posts: 858
    • View Profile
    • linkerror
    • Donate to Member

JavaJones

  • Review 2.0 Designer
  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,717
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
This one is definitely pissing me off. There have been various Google issues in the past, but I honestly feel like they've done a *decent* job of not "being evil" for such a large company. But they're starting to cross the line, and it was probably inevitable.

- Oshyan

mouser

  • First Author
  • Administrator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 36,435
    • View Profile
    • Mouser's Software Zone on DonationCoder.com
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
longer article on wired:
http://www.wired.com...ity-surrender-monkey

Quote
None of this is a good sign for Hulu, Netflix, or any other competing video service, given what the telecoms did to VoIP companies like Vonage, and DVR companies like TiVo, which promised to revolutionize phone calls and television respectively, only to see the major telecoms and cable companies mimic their inventions and price them out of the market with anti-competitive bundle deals.

Hulu and Netflix await the same fate. Google is just fine with that, the same way that it’s fine with screwing the American public out of an open wireless net. Google got theirs, and as far as it’s concerned, that’s all that matters.

zridling

  • Friend of the Site
  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,292
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Google (and Verizon and Apple) have definitely made sure that all future mobile computing will suck chunks. This horse crap is pure EVIL in all caps. So much for slogans, Google.

What I don't understand is how this is even allowed, period. You SELL a DEVICE, of which the phone part of the device is the least used! I can make phone calls from any PC, but does any PC (including a Mac) come with the restriction that I must use the ISP that the PC manufacturer chooses for me? WTF, man! No one would ever buy a carrier-dependent PC.

Be sure to check out Ryan Singel's excellent analysis of this total suckfest: Why Google Became A Carrier-Humping, Net Neutrality Surrender Monkey.

May I say that Google sucks as bad as Apple (in my view).  >:( I'm considering not having a phone at all, just using skype here and there when I need to. It will certainly confuse the bill collectors.

rgdot

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2009
  • **
  • Posts: 1,881
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
This may sound bad but here goes....if anybody believes a slogan then he/she is part of the problem.

I like gmail and a couple of other google products but I always know that when a company, a big company, reaches IPO or public and therefore profit phase it's done. Don't be surprised to see google backtrack only publicly to appease some of the don't be evil believers but at the end of the day profit driven is profit driven. If you really need to use these products you just have to make your judgment based on the old 'lesser of evils' saying.

JavaJones

  • Review 2.0 Designer
  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,717
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
I'm sorry, but Google is - so far - nowhere near as "evil" as Verizon and the other carriers. Google is trying to secure *their* future, because they know the carriers will constantly threaten it. If net neutrality weren't such a controversial issue, if we could truly get a "neutral" Internet, including wireless spectrum, I don't see how Google would have a problem with it. Do you think the wireless spectrum exclusion clause in the *suggested approach* is Google's idea? Hmm, let's think what other major party to the agreement might be interested in such a thing...

Remember too, this is just a "suggestion" to those who actually have the power to legislate. We'll see where it goes from here. But it's definitely disappointing to see Google compromising this much.

- Oshyan

J-Mac

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 2,913
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
So who is actually surprised by this?

Jim

rgdot

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2009
  • **
  • Posts: 1,881
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
@JavaJones Talking in general here...FCC's power is much vaguer than any legislation type of thing. If you are unsatisfied with those you voted for imagine how you must feel about appointees or whatever those people at the FCC are called. Google doesn't have to be as evil as anybody, they have lots of power and by sitting down with a major carrier to 'suggest' something that will affect millions they are being evil enough.

JavaJones

  • Review 2.0 Designer
  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,717
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
What I'm saying is I don't think Google suggested it. Surely Verizon did. Google has nothing to gain from this. Google is *agreeing* to it, and worse they are *endorsing* it, but why would you think they'd *suggest* it? You're making it sound like Verizon was convinced by Google to make wireless separate. The only way that seems reasonable is if Verizon was totally against net neutrality regulation entirely, whether wireless or wired, and now they're just focusing on wireless, which is still an improvement but bad.

- Oshyan

Stoic Joker

  • Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,296
    • View Profile
    • www.StoicJoker.com
    • Donate to Member
Ever hear of the concept of steering events from the shadows?

Corporations are against anything that hampers profit - That's the "in" -  Google concocts a scheme that it them pitches to Verizon allowing it to look (to the blind) like they (Google) were (innocently) just coerced into it. But the newly connected dynamic duo can then create a new playing field that they instantly control.

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
BWAAAAAAKKK~!

That was me puking at the disgusting sight of pure, unmitigated evil.

Just pause for a moment and think...


.


.



.



Complete control over communications.


.


.


.


Now. What part of that doesn't strike you as purely 1984 and worse.

The article covered the veneer. Think down a step into the implications.

Pure. Unmitigated. Untempered. Absolute. Evil.


Corporations are by definition psychotic. Literally. We've got a member here who can back this up.


Profit is a good thing, but it's not the only thing, and corporations pursue profit at all costs. They are completely psychotic and extremely dangerous when not controlled.

Now, I'm not invoking a "Nazi" comparison here, but the NSDAP had some good policies that limited corporate power. There are some small gems of wisdom buried in Fascist economics. Those are completely gone and Fascism is a dirty word. But wouldn't we be better off if we could cherry-pick those decent policies with respect to corporations and cartels?


.

.

.


I simply give up. There is no hope. We are doomed. I see no salvation.
Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker
« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 08:48:40 AM by Renegade »

CWuestefeld

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 1,002
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Please forgive me if this comment sounds over-the-top, but some of the terminology has connotations that I didn't attach to them.

Wireless spectrum and the fiberoptic lines that carry Internet traffic are fundamentally different. The "airwaves" are, given technology currently in use, a very finite resource. Short of putting all wireless spectrum into private hands for effective management (see Coase's Theorem), there needs to be some way to handle traffic so that it doesn't get polluted to the point of uselessness. In contrast, one can add more fiber bandwidth nearly ad infinitum, and can do so without government interference (for example, buying the right to do so along train rights-of-way).

Thus there may be good reason to enforce neutrality over wireless, but not over the Internet as a whole.

Additionally, because of practical considerations with "last-mile" ISP service (there's generally at most 2 choices for any given consumer: at most, you can choose Cable or DSL), similar arguments may apply for enforced neutrality for ISPs. This should be a temporary state: once technologies allow for more competition, these controls should be relaxed. However, (a) when was the last time you saw federal regulations being relaxed? and (b) given the precedent of governmental controls limiting profitability, who is going to invest in that new technology to improve competition?

Google, and large long-haul backbone carriers like ATT or Qwest, have invested incredibly large amounts of money in building an effective network. Thanks to their investment we've got a whole world of information at our fingertips, quite literally. It seems to me that those who made those giant investments deserve to reap the benefits of their investment.

Net neutrality is the government telling these carriers that they can no longer manage their networks (that they built with their own investments, and at their own risk), that the government can direct how these putatively-private resources must be used. While stopping a good deal short of outright nationalization of the communications industry, this certainly qualifies as economic fascism:

Quote
An inherent aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigisme[12], meaning an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence, and effectively controls production and allocation of resources. In general, apart from the nationalizations of some industries, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state.
(See https://secure.wikim...iki/Economic_fascism )

From a moral perspective, I can't fathom why so many people believe that forcing the communications providers to surrender their property to government control is the right thing to do. It seems that we've simply gotten so used to having completely open access, that we are entitled to it. But by what moral law do we gain control over another's property?

From a practical perspective, I am equally worried. It seems to me that many people are exhibiting a knee-jerk response to large corporations, jumping on the "quest for profits is evil" bandwagon. The thing is, in fighting the battle you're giving to the government yet another tool that they can use against us. You're giving more powers to the same entity that brought us the war in Iraq, the IRS, subsidies for giant corporations like Archer Daniels Midland, and countless encroachments on our fundamental freedoms. Quoting again from the wikipedia article economic fascism:

Quote
One significant fascist economic belief was that prosperity would naturally follow once the nation has achieved a cultural and spiritual re-awakening. ... Once in power, fascists usually adopted whatever economic program they believed to be most suitable for their political goals.

In over two centuries of American history, I can only think of a single major government initiative that has been significantly beneficial in the big picture (that is, the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System). Most all turn into monsters, suffering regulatory capture so that the government turns into the servants of those they intended to regulate (e.g., the petroleum industry). I think you'll be hard pressed to name any significant government initiative that is as good as "not terrible".

In that context, it just boggles my mind that people would be so agitated to take such a risk with something that's so important -- all over something that is, so far, purely abstract and hasn't been shown to really be a problem.

EDIT: add link explaining "regulatory capture"

EDIT #2: Here's a worthwhile alternate point-of-view. The author starts with the fundamental Internet value that the network must allow bits to flow freely, period, and develops that into an idea that service providers ought to be able to add services with greater value, so long as they don't interfere with that fundamental philosophy of the Internet. This isn't entirely in agreement with my above post, but seems a pretty compelling viewpoint.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 04:41:36 PM by CWuestefeld »

mouser

  • First Author
  • Administrator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 36,435
    • View Profile
    • Mouser's Software Zone on DonationCoder.com
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
From a moral perspective, I can't fathom why so many people believe that forcing the communications providers to surrender their property to government control is the right thing to do. It seems that we've simply gotten so used to having completely open access, that we are entitled to it. But by what moral law do we gain control over another's property?

Devil's advocate:

Then just how can anyone justify *the state* selling off the rights to communications? What is everyone else supposed to do? Stay silent? Where do the corporations get the right to use certain frequencies? Who administers the bands?

If it is the state, then just how does the state justify allowing certain people to communicate and forcing others to be subject to their whims?

That's dangerous.


From a practical perspective, I am equally worried. It seems to me that many people are exhibiting a knee-jerk response to large corporations, jumping on the "quest for profits is evil" bandwagon.

Nothing against profit here. :)


In over two centuries of American history, I can only think of a single major government initiative that has been significantly beneficial in the big picture (that is, the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System). Most all turn into monsters, suffering regulatory capture so that the government turns into the servants of those they intended to regulate (e.g., the petroleum industry). I think you'll be hard pressed to name any significant government initiative that is as good as "not terrible".

I can think of a few instances, though not in American history. The Korean push for technology and industry initiated by dictator Park Junghee has worked wonders for the country. His freeway initiative was revolutionary there at the time. Don't get me wrong -- the guy was pretty f***ing evil a lot of the time, but he always had the best interests of the country at heart, and a lot of his policies worked out. Funny enough, when you look at dictatorships or authoritarian regimes, this same pattern plays out where infrastructure gets built and the nation gets pushed forward. There is the obvious cost for that though...

I suppose I'd rather be at the whims of the state than at the whims of a corporation. Corporations psychotically pursue profit (it's the psychotic part that is evil, not the profit part), while governments psychotically pursue the best interests of the government/state/nation.

Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

rxantos

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2009
  • **
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Instead of all this. Why no simply get government to recognize freedom of speech on any type of media and not just written paper.

That would mean that if provider A, blocks B, then B would have cease and desist case against A.  The same if its government the one blocking B, as government itself cannot go against the constitution. Being that the constitution is the only thing that, somehow, legitimizes government in the first place.

But then again, it would also apply to wireless and Verizon and Google do not want that.

The blood that makes a corporation live is money, thus a corporation would never represent the peoples interest.


zridling

  • Friend of the Site
  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,292
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
From a moral perspective, I can't fathom why so many people believe that forcing the communications providers to surrender their property to government control is the right thing to do. It seems that we've simply gotten so used to having completely open access, that we are entitled to it. But by what moral law do we gain control over another's property?

Those airwaves belong to the people -- licensed through their government -- in which the corporation wishes to profit from, not the corporations. The reality is that telecom giants have always written their own laws (and most regs) for the politicians (in the US) to pass. You'd be surprised how little money it takes to sway a politician's vote on any issue, especially tech issues. Profits are fine and well, but not at the expense of liberty, which corporations are first to exclude right out of the EULA and TOS.

The "internet" as we know it would have never happened -- or been created -- if it were left to corporations. They would have throttled us all to Compuserve or some nonsense. There certainly would be no companies built for searching it! You either have a neutral Net or you don't. Corporations can't stand the internet in its original form -- not enough money in it for THEM. Google and Verizon have decided on their own that it's okay to discriminate data priority, depending on whose sending (profiting) and who's receiving (paying). Simply put, this is a sellout for Google, a company built by hackers. The bigger a company gets, the more money they make, the less they defend anything to do with their original hacking roots.

edit: punctuation
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 06:40:49 AM by zridling »

rgdot

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2009
  • **
  • Posts: 1,881
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Those airwaves belong to the people -- licensed through their government -- in which the corporation wishes to profit from, not the corporations. The reality is that telecom giants have always written their own laws (and most regs) for the politicians (in the US) to pass. You'd be surprised how little money it takes to sway a politicians vote on any issue, especially tech issues. Profits are fine and well, but not at the expense of liberty, which corporations are first to exclude right out of the EULA and TOS.

The "internet" as we know it would have never happened -- or been created -- if it were left to corporations. They would have throttled us all to Compuserve or some nonsense. There certainly would be no companies built for searching it! You either have a neutral Net or you don't. Corporations can't stand the internet in its original form -- not enough money in it for THEM. Google and Verizon have decided on their own that it's okay to discriminate data priority, depending on whose sending (profiting) and who's receiving (paying). Simply put, this is a sellout for Google, a company built by hackers. The bigger a company gets, the more money they make, the less they defend anything to do with their original hacking roots.

+1 and then some

rgdot

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2009
  • **
  • Posts: 1,881
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Google's response convinces me even more that we are finished

Quote
So, for example, broadband providers could offer a special gaming channel, or a more secure banking service, or a home health monitoring capability – so long as such offerings are separate and apart from the public Internet
(Emphasis mine)
 

My reaction is:

WHAT THE....?

http://googlepublicp...work-neutrality.html

superboyac

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,070
  • Is your software in my list?
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Google (and Verizon and Apple) have definitely made sure that all future mobile computing will suck chunks. This horse crap is pure EVIL in all caps. So much for slogans, Google.

What I don't understand is how this is even allowed, period. You SELL a DEVICE, of which the phone part of the device is the least used! I can make phone calls from any PC, but does any PC (including a Mac) come with the restriction that I must use the ISP that the PC manufacturer chooses for me? WTF, man! No one would ever buy a carrier-dependent PC.

Be sure to check out Ryan Singel's excellent analysis of this total suckfest: Why Google Became A Carrier-Humping, Net Neutrality Surrender Monkey.

May I say that Google sucks as bad as Apple (in my view).  >:( I'm considering not having a phone at all, just using skype here and there when I need to. It will certainly confuse the bill collectors.
+1000.  I've been increasingly annoyed by this in recent months.  now I'm thinking about it all a little more, and I'm getting really really pissed.  I'm thinking of doing away with phones also.  The audio quality today on all phones is not even close to the land lines 20 years ago.  I used to be able to whisper on the phone to girls at home and everything was clear and easy to hear.  Now, there are delays, really bad audio quality...you have to concentrate so hard just to listen.  let alone people calling you while on the run more often than not, so you have to hear all the atmosphere noise.  Seriously, I'm thinking about severely minimizing my phone use.  In fact, I'm going to cancel my never used voip service tomorrow.
If these companies accomplish what their trying to do, the same thing is going to happen with the phones.  The quality of the internet connection or use (whatever that is called...the internet experience) will go down if they start putting all these corporate restrictions in place.  All these people should stop combining all these different services and products.  Even if you are one big company, don't offer these things all packaged together.  The ISP is one thing, the phone device is another thing, the phone service provider is another thing...just keep them separate and let the users mix and match as applicable to their needs.  So in 10 years, your internet experience may be less free than it is today.  We think we're going forward, but we're not.  We're taking something that was very open and free and placing a lot of restrictions on it.  Why?  So the big corporations get really rich.
I hate what is happening.  If it keeps going on, i may just cut myself off entirely.  The only "service" I need from any of these companies is a connection to the internet grid.  After that, I want them to leave me alone.  And the only specs from them that I care about is upload/download speed.  i don't give two sh--s about anything else.  I'll get my own phone, my own server, my own hard drives, my own operating systems, thank you.
Too many people are getting way too rich these days by gimmicks instead of providing a service that people need.  That's why these things are happening.  The underlying intentions of all these companies is a gimmick rather than a service that people are demanding and need.  So instead of trying to address the desires and needs of their customers, THEY tell the customers what they SHOULD want.  I hate it.

superboyac

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,070
  • Is your software in my list?
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Ugh...
Quote
Both instead were working furiously to get an Android powerhouse phone of their own in a few months (Sprint with the EVO 4G and Verizon with the Droid X HTC Incredible). Those were phones they could cripple — unlike the Nexus One — locking them down and adding lots of unremovable carrier bloatware.

Read More http://www.wired.com.../all/1#ixzz0wQVA4brk

Makes me sick.  Great link, by the way, Zaine.  Thanks!

superboyac

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,070
  • Is your software in my list?
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Wow, I had no idea all these discussions and issues were hot topics right now.  if you guys have read my threads lately, you can hear me ranting about all of this in a somewhat newbie, uninformed manner.  Now that I'm learning about it all, it's fascinating how intentional and deliberate all of this stuff is.  There's a reason why it was so hard for me to decide whether I wanted a tablet, ipad, or nothing at all in that one thread.  It's hard because I have no ability to pick a device that has all the features I'm looking for.  The decision is a lose-lose situation...you have to pick what's not as bad as the rest, rather than what is the best.

So, back to my question of why is it such a big deal for phones to upgrade their Android OS from 1.6 to 2.1 to 2.2...well, now you know.  It's not just some innocent thing they forgot to include.  It was done deliberately so they can control the restrictions they want in place.  They key word: deliberate.

zridling

  • Friend of the Site
  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,292
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Too many people are getting way too rich these days by gimmicks instead of providing a service that people need. That's why these things are happening. The underlying intentions of all these companies is a gimmick rather than a service that people are demanding and need.

This is what makes me want to fight like a psycho and simultaneously just give up. We never get what we want. And forget about being rewarded for brand loyalty. You're made to feel like a freeloading idiot for even bringing that quaint subject up.

As others have noted, Google used their "open internet" mantra to their marketing advantage until they were in position to get the most guaranteed money. I fully understand the sole, heartless nature of a corporation is to make money, pure and simple. But as superboyac says, it's no longer about making a honest profit, it's about creating all kinds of tricks and traps to separate you from your money. "You want a phone? Here's a mini-computer, but we're going to restrict every single thing that comes with it, and we'll charge you by the minute if you want to do anything interesting with it (web, video, etc.)."

After Google, Apple, and Microsoft rape the web you once knew and loved, what's left? Shut it down and take up knitting, I suppose.

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
It all starts with bad legislation. The airwaves are a public/state resource, and they are being co-opted.

What is needed is legislation to correct the current cluster-****, as well as a truly open OS (like an embedded Linux) and open hardware that will run an OS that they consumer can choose.

Microsoft divorced itself from being tied to hardware early on, and look at all the hardware choices we have now for the desktop and laptop platforms. We have LOTS! The Apple model is more like the current mobile model where hardware and software are tied together.

But it's hopeless.

If there were any hope, it would lie with Microsoft making their mobile platform easy to develop hardware for. Only Microsoft has the potential clout to help usher in mobile hardware developers that offer choice. Somebody would have to help follow up there with a Linux OS for mobile hardware. Sound impossible? I think so.

Yep. It's hopeless.

Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

Stoic Joker

  • Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,296
    • View Profile
    • www.StoicJoker.com
    • Donate to Member
Too many people are getting way too rich these days by gimmicks instead of providing a service that people need.  That's why these things are happening.  The underlying intentions of all these companies is a gimmick rather than a service that people are demanding and need.  So instead of trying to address the desires and needs of their customers, THEY tell the customers what they SHOULD want.  I hate it.

Right on man!

While I do 100% agree with your entire diatribe, this is my favorite part. It's a rant I've gone off on IRL many times - How ever I generally fail to complete it without using the F word about 9 times. :)