Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

On the Web: Google net neutrality stance gives Net’s future to corporations

<< < (4/8) > >>

rxantos:
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:
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?-CWuestefeld (August 11, 2010, 12:45 PM)
--- End quote ---

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

rgdot:
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.
-zridling (August 11, 2010, 09:10 PM)
--- End quote ---

+1 and then some

rgdot:
Google's response convinces me even more that we are finished

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
--- End quote ---
(Emphasis mine)
 

My reaction is:

WHAT THE....?

http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/facts-about-our-network-neutrality.html

superboyac:
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.
-zridling (August 10, 2010, 08:37 PM)
--- End quote ---
+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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page