Google Don't be Evil! "Google and Verizon Near Deal on Web Pay Tiers"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/te.../05secret.html

a more positive spin
Groundbreaking Agreement Between Verizon Wireless and Google to... -- BASKING RIDGE, N.J., and MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif., Oct. 6 /PRNewswire/ --

a more appropriate view

Marvin Ammori: Google-Verizon Pact: Makes BP Look Good



Sure I may be biased..


anyways what i gather from this is it is paving the way so big corporations will be able to dictate what sites you see.


here's a quote of some points that google and verizon have agreed upon

"Google has always said it supports net neutrality, whereas Verizon is one of the biggest networks in the US and wants to be allowed to charge for different services. The two agreed a proposal, rather than a formal deal, which listed key principles that business and regulators could work with:

• ISPs cannot discriminate against any service in an anti-competitive way.
• ISPs cannot block consumers from any legal service.
• ISPs have the right to manage and prioritize web traffic.
• ISPs must be transparent about how they are managing services.
• The FCC would enforce on a case-by-case basis, and have its regulatory powers over broadband services restored.
• A fixed part of all phone fees would be dedicated to investment in broadband networks.

And the last and most significant two:

• ISPs can introduce new and different internet services, such as 3D.
• Wireless services are exempt from all these proposals, apart from the condition of transparency."

We're more and more living in a corporatocracy...and yet people still appear likely to give the pure corporate shills, the Republicans, more seats in Congress.

Anyone who doesn't think this will lead to corporations slowing down unfriendly sites is fooling him/herself.

Originally Posted by Anony

We're more and more living in a corporatocracy...and yet people still appear likely to give the pure corporate shills, the Republicans, more seats in Congress.

Anyone who doesn't think this will lead to corporations slowing down unfriendly sites is fooling him/herself.

It doesn't matter what party they are: politicians have a tendency to be corporate shills whether they're Democrat or Republican. The only difference is which corporations or interests they support.

Originally Posted by NotSoRighteousRob

anyways what i gather from this is it is paving the way so big corporations will be able to dictate what sites you see.


here's a quote of some points that google and verizon have agreed upon

"Google has always said it supports net neutrality, whereas Verizon is one of the biggest networks in the US and wants to be allowed to charge for different services. The two agreed a proposal, rather than a formal deal, which listed key principles that business and regulators could work with:

• ISPs cannot discriminate against any service in an anti-competitive way.
• ISPs cannot block consumers from any legal service.
• ISPs have the right to manage and prioritize web traffic.
• ISPs must be transparent about how they are managing services.
• The FCC would enforce on a case-by-case basis, and have its regulatory powers over broadband services restored.
• A fixed part of all phone fees would be dedicated to investment in broadband networks.

And the last and most significant two:

• ISPs can introduce new and different internet services, such as 3D.
• Wireless services are exempt from all these proposals, apart from the condition of transparency."

Please explain your first Point.

The only 2 points that draw my concern is the fact that ISPs can can manage and prioritize web traffic and the subject about Wireless. Everything else is for the better though if you think about it. They have to tell the FCC how they are managing the data, They can't discriminate against their smaller (or in some cases Large) competitors, and they can't block people from legal info. One thing that also draws my concern is the fact it's a case by case basis for the FCC, but once some legal precedent is set, it'll make it much clearer. I'm glad that Google and Verizon is looking towards the future as well by instituting a fixed fee to invest in broadband networks.

Originally Posted by timeless

It doesn't matter what party they are: politicians have a tendency to be corporate shills whether they're Democrat or Republican. The only difference is which corporations or interests they support.

Democrats balance their need for contributions against what they think is right. They can be bought, or spineless, but they don't at their core believe in just giving in to corporations.

Republicans just sell their souls to corporations and will never go against them.

Originally Posted by Anony

Democrats balance their need for contributions against what they think is right.

Nonsense.

I hope you're not stupid enough to fall for a politicians act.

Originally Posted by Anony

Democrats balance their need for contributions against what they think is right. They can be bought, or spineless, but they don't at their core believe in just giving in to corporations.

Republicans just sell their souls to corporations and will never go against them.

Why do you think this? What makes a "Democrat" so fundamentally different from a "Republican" that it's appropriate to make these distinctions?

Here's a couple examples. In early 2008, the Democrats pulled in $716,300 from the energy lobby and $144,400 from BP in particular. (Lobbyists Give Millions to Dems As Obama Smears 'Special Interests' - Publius Forum). Do they believe, in their hearts, that it's fantastic to support the energy industry -- which happens to be one of the largest corporate interest groups in the United States? Democratic aids regularly take up positions as lobbyists for six-figure salaries that can reach as high as $450,000 to represent big business interests. (K Street cash lures Dem aides - Chris Frates - POLITICO.com). When someone works for a lobbying organization, they don't get to pick and choose what they think is right - they're handed an assignment and they go do it, ultimately only for the cash. Morality doesn't seem to factor into it for either party.

I'm personally registered as an Independent. Most politicians are cut from the same cloth, it's just a matter of which side they're on. Both sides take ridiculous amounts of money from lobbyists and often end up working as lobbyists themselves once they're done being legislators. There's nothing fundamentally different between a Democrat and a Republican; you'll find that both sides take tons of cash from big energy, big pharma, etc. In some cases, the Democrats actually take in more special interest cash than the Republicans do. (The first link I gave in this post is an example of that.) It just goes to show you that you can't really trust any politician.

Now, granted, not every politician who accepts money is "bought". Special interests and corporations give to both sides, and both sides are happy to accept the funds. Whether they act on these funds or not is a matter of personal integrity, but I'm of the opinion that politicians shouldn't be able to accept money from any of these institutions. Even the appearance of a conflict of interest should be avoided, and it does seem like a conflict of interest when taxpayers are giving them ~$100,000 and special interests are giving them many times more. But, like I said, not all politicians are crooks; it's just that party lines don't seem to make a difference as to which are crooks and which are not.

All corporations are at their heart sociopathic. Once in a while one of them will feign empathy long enough to gain some public support.

Also, the problem is not republicans or democrats being corrupt as much as the system being corrupt. If you voted each and every one of them out, nothing would change. New faces, business as usual. Term limits would be a good thing though.

edit: Clarifying that I don't think all businesses are like that. Many global corporations have started as very moral and likable companies, but as they expand and add more management, especially middle management, they become more and more these massive faceless entities where no one has any real responsibilities except keeping good stats and upping quarterly profits (obsessing about quarterly profit is a really messed up and harmful way of running the economy in my opinion).

Originally Posted by timeless

Why do you think this? What makes a "Democrat" so fundamentally different from a "Republican" that it's appropriate to make these distinctions?

It used to be less distinct, when there were congressional Democrats who supported more conservative policies than many Republicans and vice versa.

Now, however, there are no Republicans that often vote against the interests of the wealthy and big corporations, whereas all Democrats do at least sometimes.

Obama hasn't been tough enough on BP, but there is no current prominent Republican who would have been tougher. Most Republicans would have tried to shield BP from the consequences. One Republican even apologized to BP(!) and others have made sympathetic statements. No Democrats have done that.

It's not that Democrats always act properly; it's that Republicans never do.

Originally Posted by Decon

Please explain your first Point.

The only 2 points that draw my concern is the fact that ISPs can can manage and prioritize web traffic and the subject about Wireless. Everything else is for the better though if you think about it. They have to tell the FCC how they are managing the data, They can't discriminate against their smaller (or in some cases Large) competitors, and they can't block people from legal info. One thing that also draws my concern is the fact it's a case by case basis for the FCC, but once some legal precedent is set, it'll make it much clearer. I'm glad that Google and Verizon is looking towards the future as well by instituting a fixed fee to invest in broadband networks.

"• ISPs can introduce new and different internet services, such as 3D.
• Wireless services are exempt from all these proposals, apart from the condition of transparency."


basically if read into the articles i posted along with this it would tell you that sure as the internet is now it's not a terrible thing, but the entire internet is moving slowly to wireless, and as isp's change the internet they will have no restrictions at all. This paves the way for them to completely control the internet. And even under the current restrictions verizon would only be charge a 2 million dollar penalty which is nothing to them. They make something like 80 million in profit every day. It is basically telling them that they will make money by breaking the law.