Google: Do No Evil or Beginning of the End?

[snowhiker]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/technology/05secret.html?_r=2&hp

Quote from article:

"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."

And the denial from both companies:

"@NYTimes is wrong," the company tweeted this morning on its public policy account. "We've not had any convos with VZN about paying for carriage of our traffic. We remain committed to an open internet."

"Ditto, insists Verizon."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-deny-net-neutrality-rumors-but-still-meeting.ars

Seems to me that a "free" Internet is just begging to be tapped/exploited/raped by the major mega-corps looking for ever more revenue streams. And with the FCC bought and paid for what protections do consumers have?

[ddrueding]

Am I being naive to believe that they are, in fact, not having these negotiations? Or that Verizon is trying to start a dialog and Google wouldn't have any of it?

Google is one of the major winners in a neutral internet.

[Gilbo]

I don't think Google would compromise substantially on net neutrality, so I consider the rumors to be unlikely.

It would be concerning if it were true however. In Canada our communications industry is regulated by ex-oligopolist executives. The odds of us having ever having a neutral net are zero, unfortunately. Best of luck to you guys in fighting the good fight though ;) .

[snowhiker]

I don't think Google would compromise substantially on net neutrality, so I consider the rumors to be unlikely.

It would be concerning if it were true however..

http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/08/google-verizon-unveil-net-neutrality-lite-to-government.ars

Seems the rumors were at least semi-true and it looks like there may be cause for concern.

Lets just redefine what the Internet is and isn't. From the article, "Then there's this nugget: the plan would only apply to wired networks. Wireless network operators can discriminate and prioritize to their heart's content."

Looks like the NYT was actually pretty close to the true afterall?!?

[ddrueding]

Hardly. Wireless bandwidth actually is more expensive, so a compromise there is more reasonable.

[snowhiker]

http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/08/a-paper-trail-of-betrayal-googles-net-neutrality-collapse.ars

More info.

[Gilbo]

Very disappointing.