Google and Verizon Near Deal on Pay Tiers

rabbitt

rabbitt

CAGiversary!
Feedback
7 (100%)
[quote name='nyt']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. [/quote]

The rest: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/technology/05secret.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

It's easy for these stories to get swept under the radar so I thought I'd pass it on.

Expect to hear a lot more news similar to this in the future.
 
Let me play devil's advocate. This sounds like a digital version of 'payment for order flow' to me. Alternately, it sounds like businesses who pay premium for the shelf space and location they occupy in grocery stores.

So if companies pay for their websites to load faster, and no other websites are any slower than they would have been otherwise, what is the problem?
 
Because if these sites are given priority over other traffic, it actually could effect how fast other content loads. I'm sure they'll swear it won't, but if bandwidth is reserved for certain content over others, that's less bandwidth for downloading other content. That's assuming they don't increase their capacity, but I wouldn't count on that either.
 
[quote name='Clak']Because if these sites are given priority over other traffic, it actually could effect how fast other content loads. I'm sure they'll swear it won't, but if bandwidth is reserved for certain content over others, that's less bandwidth for downloading other content. That's assuming they don't increase their capacity, but I wouldn't count on that either.[/QUOTE]

Yeah...maybe my understanding of technology is too sparse, but this sounds like a more coherent "the internet is a series of tubes" to me.
 
Committed Information Rate, folks.

While an ISP can put a flag on a packet that it be processed later, the destination ISP has to reach that agreement with the source ISP. Otherwise, you'll have a nice fight between ISPs.

The worry about Net Neutrality is that websites will be effectively blocked because they aren't paying ISPs enough money to be promoted.

Yeah. ISPs really aren't getting enough tech calls from angry, pissed-off, petty assholes.
 
It's been tried before, but how would you like google searches to return results not based on website criteria but by website prestige. Verizon, and any other company, would love to pay google to jump to the top of their search results.
 
[quote name='rabbitt']It's been tried before, but how would you like google searches to return results not based on website criteria but by website prestige. Verizon, and any other company, would love to pay google to jump to the top of their search results.[/QUOTE]

Well, they all ready do but they are marked "sponsored content". I get your point though, imagine if they weren't marked.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Yeah...maybe my understanding of technology is too sparse, but this sounds like a more coherent "the internet is a series of tubes" to me.[/QUOTE]
Well network capacity can be thought of in that way, the same way a plumbing system can only carry so much water at a time. If you favor certain traffic over other traffic then you might allot more bandwidth to certain traffic and less to others, nothing hard to do. I'm no expert, but that is at least one possibility. I'm sure foc could elaborate more.

edit- And he already has, damn you.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Committed Information Rate, folks.

While an ISP can put a flag on a packet that it be processed later, the destination ISP has to reach that agreement with the source ISP. Otherwise, you'll have a nice fight between ISPs.

The worry about Net Neutrality is that websites will be effectively blocked because they aren't paying ISPs enough money to be promoted.

Yeah. ISPs really aren't getting enough tech calls from angry, pissed-off, petty assholes.[/QUOTE]

On the other hand: ♫JOB SECURITY♫
 
I don't know, whenever I've called AT&T in the past I've gotten somebody in India. You like curry foc?:lol:
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Let me play devil's advocate. This sounds like a digital version of 'payment for order flow' to me. Alternately, it sounds like businesses who pay premium for the shelf space and location they occupy in grocery stores.

So if companies pay for their websites to load faster, and no other websites are any slower than they would have been otherwise, what is the problem?[/QUOTE]

I just don't see how the nonpaying websites are not going to be "any slower than they would have been otherwise". If their info packets are always getting pushed to the back of the queue, then their data is going to take longer to get to it's destination.

It's like when you're waiting in the line at a packed club when it's "one out, one in" time. Everytime a VIP cuts the line, you have to wait longer to get in. If there were no VIPs you would be in that club sooner.

I also think this works better as a commodity. As soon as you start this shit it gives the ISPs an incentive to not upgrade their systems, because they want to drive more customers to their pay department. You're also going to put the squeeze on alot of small companies and people who simply want to share information gratis.
 
[quote name='Clak']I don't know, whenever I've called AT&T in the past I've gotten somebody in India. You like curry foc?:lol:[/QUOTE]

We outsourced our router support overseas. Reactions from both customers, tech and our management have been uniformly negative.

Talking to a short-fused customer with a thick accent doesn't save any money.
 
while reactions to your outsourcing may be negative, shareholder equity doesn't seem to mind all that much...
 
Wonderful. The federal government has been giving the teleco's billions of dollars in subsidies and existing infrastructure only to have the teleco's become more greedy. YAY! "FREE MARKET" CORPORATOCRACY!!!
 
Here's a site that is fighting for net neutrality and has a FAQ here. I've selected one question and posted below. ALSO, bear in mind that the internet was created by your tax dollars ie DARPANET and handed over to private industry through bills they passed. Yes, they as in industry passed as that is pretty much how our congress works.

Basically, the internet being the repository for nearly all information that people consume, to keep the access to this information is paramount. And priority should not be determined by anyone other than the individual seeking information. This moves this in the direction of other mediums like TV, movies, etc which are highly controlled by large corporations. Also consider that in democracies especially, this mode of information transport is evolving and has become integrated into our democracy. If this is controlled by private interests, then we strangle ourselves in yet another medium fro discourse. Just look at our politics and how private interests via campaign funding control who we vote for. Our choices are only those that they let us.

http://www.savetheinternet.com/frequently-asked-questions?gclid=CJvUvs3F6aMCFdj75wodkjuN4A
What's at stake if we lose Net Neutrality?

The consequences of a world without Net Neutrality would be devastating. Innovation would be stifled, competition limited, and access to information restricted. Consumer choice and the free market would be sacrificed to the interests of a few corporations.
On the Internet, consumers are in ultimate control -- deciding between content, applications and services available anywhere, no matter who owns the network. There's no middleman. But without Net Neutrality, the Internet will look more like cable TV. Network owners will decide which channels, content and applications are available; consumers will have to choose from their menu.
The free and open Internet brings with it the revolutionary possibility that any Internet site could have the reach of a TV or radio station. The loss of Net Neutrality would end this unparalleled opportunity for freedom of expression.
The Internet has always been driven by innovation. Web sites and services succeed or fail on their own merits. Without Net Neutrality, decisions now made collectively by millions of users will be made in corporate boardrooms. The choice we face now is whether we can choose the content and services we want, or whether the broadband barons will choose for us.
 
[quote name='joeboosauce']What's at stake if we lose Net Neutrality?

The consequences of a world without Net Neutrality would be devastating. Innovation would be stifled, competition limited, and access to information restricted. Consumer choice and the free market would be sacrificed to the interests of a few corporations.
On the Internet, consumers are in ultimate control -- deciding between content, applications and services available anywhere, no matter who owns the network. There's no middleman. But without Net Neutrality, the Internet will look more like cable TV. Network owners will decide which channels, content and applications are available; consumers will have to choose from their menu.
The free and open Internet brings with it the revolutionary possibility that any Internet site could have the reach of a TV or radio station. The loss of Net Neutrality would end this unparalleled opportunity for freedom of expression.
The Internet has always been driven by innovation. Web sites and services succeed or fail on their own merits. Without Net Neutrality, decisions now made collectively by millions of users will be made in corporate boardrooms. The choice we face now is whether we can choose the content and services we want, or whether the broadband barons will choose for us.[/QUOTE]


redblue_pill.jpg
 
[quote name='joeboosauce']http://www.savetheinternet.com/frequently-asked-questions?gclid=CJvUvs3F6aMCFdj75wodkjuN4AWhat's at stake if we lose Net Neutrality?

The consequences of a world without Net Neutrality would be devastating. Innovation would be stifled, competition limited, and access to information restricted. Consumer choice and the free market would be sacrificed to the interests of a few corporations.
On the Internet, consumers are in ultimate control -- deciding between content, applications and services available anywhere, no matter who owns the network. There's no middleman. But without Net Neutrality, the Internet will look more like cable TV. Network owners will decide which channels, content and applications are available; consumers will have to choose from their menu.
The free and open Internet brings with it the revolutionary possibility that any Internet site could have the reach of a TV or radio station. The loss of Net Neutrality would end this unparalleled opportunity for freedom of expression.
The Internet has always been driven by innovation. Web sites and services succeed or fail on their own merits. Without Net Neutrality, decisions now made collectively by millions of users will be made in corporate boardrooms. The choice we face now is whether we can choose the content and services we want, or whether the broadband barons will choose for us.[/QUOTE]

As an employee of the presumable villains of this argument, you really have to put the genie back in the bottle to get Net Neutrality to work.

If you can't, too fucking bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top