Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 12th Aug 2010 23:14 UTC
Internet & Networking Google and Verizon's joint statement on net neutrality and the internet (which apparently consists of three separate internets) wasn't particularly well-received. Google has gone into damage-control mode, defending the policy proposal in a sort of get-the-facts-like weblog post.
Order by: Score:
net neutrality
by Priest on Thu 12th Aug 2010 23:45 UTC
Member since:

"Second, because wireless networks employ airwaves, rather than wires, and share constrained capacity among many users, these carriers need to manage their networks more actively."

It is true that they have less bandwidth, but they also typically exercise orders of magnitude more control.

While wired ISP's may engage in traffic shaping, you don't see them saying "sorry, but you are not allowed to install that"

This does seem like kind of a "it's only OK when we do it" thing.

Reply Score: 7

Google is evil.
by netsql on Fri 13th Aug 2010 10:41 UTC in reply to "net neutrality"
netsql Member since:

that is all.

Reply Score: 2

public asset
by kristoph on Fri 13th Aug 2010 00:26 UTC
Member since:

The airwaves are a public asset. No corporation should be able to dictate how those assets are used. They purchased the right to provide services as a utility would and should not be permitted to be the arbiter of the distribution of that service to the benefit/detriment of their partners.

Image if the water company cut deals so some businesses had enough to operate while other - smaller - companies did not. It would be politically impossible. Yet with wireless bandwidth Google thinks we should be cool with it.

I accept the argument that bandwidth 'over the air' is limited and so - like any other limited resource - higher consumption should carry a higher cost but there should be no 'backroom deals' between anyone.


Reply Score: 3

by Hiev on Fri 13th Aug 2010 01:10 UTC
Member since:

This behavior is new, usually Google steps back and says sorry or "we screw it up", but this time it defends its proposal, wireless control is really important for them. no doubt.

Reply Score: 4

RE: ...
by _xmv on Fri 13th Aug 2010 01:31 UTC in reply to "..."
_xmv Member since:

Yeah, only one of their argument is true, aka the bandwidth is limited wirelessly. Otherwise that's a bit evil, surprising.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ...
by Priest on Fri 13th Aug 2010 08:11 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Priest Member since:

meh, I have always viewed net neutrality as well intentioned but poorly executed and consequently more harmful than useful anyway.

Now the shoe is on the other foot and Google is all like, "um yeah, about this net neutrality thing.."

Reply Score: 2

Net neutrality
by FritzM on Fri 13th Aug 2010 08:14 UTC
Member since:


Edited 2010-08-13 08:16 UTC

Reply Score: 1

I have to repeat from the last discussion
by jabbotts on Fri 13th Aug 2010 14:19 UTC
Member since:

"Second, because wireless networks employ airwaves, rather than wires, and share constrained capacity among many users, these carriers need to manage their networks more actively"

So, to repeat:

What!? And the broadband cable loop that my home and neighboring homes are on isn't a shared capacity? Would someone tell my broadband provider to stop sending those "you are using XX% more than other customers in your area and affecting there services" letters then?

Sure, there may be more mobile phones hitting the local cell towers but what are the chances those devices are running torrent downloads like the neighbor's kids are on our local wire loop?

Reply Score: 3

Feanor Member since:

The Cable Company can drop more wire down your street, but if you throw another Cell Tower up it still can only access 1 EM band.

Reply Score: 1

Priest Member since:

Not entirely true. Carriers own multiple bands of spectrum and they often can deploy more bandwidth to a tower as long as it isn't the same frequency used by a nearby tower.

Here is a simplified diagram:

(Frequencies 1 and 3) - (frequencies 2 and 4) - (Frequencies 1 and 3)

They can reuse the spectrum again a couple of cells over with minimal interference depending on the specific spectrum in use but like anything there is a cost/benefit return to be considered.

Higher frequencies attenuate at a greater rate and allow for smaller, more densely populated cell sizes.

Reply Score: 2

Feanor Member since:

They are still limited to that area for each band. Once they deploy all of their non-overlapping bands on a tower, they can no longer increase bandwidth. If an apartment complex were to go up next to the tower when they were near capacity from residents at the neighboring complex there is no way to increase the bandwidth in the area, since spectrum is finite. For the cable company, they just lay more lines leading to the new building.

Reply Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:

If it's that easy for wired providers, why are my speeds no where near what europe and asia have for internet broadband?

Reply Score: 2

MamiyaOtaru Member since:

because your provider sucks? Jut because they have no motivation to improve speeds (no competition?) doesn't mean it isn't doable.

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:

I can't disagree there. That was also part of my point. Not just my provider but pretty much all the North American providers are sitting on old infrastructure and transfer speeds/limits dismal compared to Europe and Asia.

The post I responded to made it sound like the wired providers can just pop out and swap few boxes; tadaaa.. triple bandwidth for everyone. But wireless, oh that's a finite resource that can't possibly be improved to support smartphones. From the consumers side, wired is just as much a shared finite resource unless anyone knows a provider allowing consumers to add there own taps into the infrastructure.

Reply Score: 2

The inherent evil of corporate structure.
by crhylove on Fri 13th Aug 2010 20:58 UTC
Member since:

Google has become more and more evil ever since it's IPO. It's money hungry share holders only care about making more money. Human health, liberty, or happiness are all expendable according to these rules. This is the inherent evil of corporate structure.

Google is Evil. It's a corporation, beholden to stock holders who do not care about any moral or ethical concern. They just want money, and they will outright kill us all to get it.

Net neutrality CLEARLY is not a concern. The more neutral the net, the more competitors, the less control and money for Google. Hence, nix net neutrality.

We need massive reform and complete abolishment of corporations. Small family operated businesses should replace all the corporations. This would ensure human liberty, health, happiness, and a reasonable wage for all citizens.


Reply Score: 4

by famalegoods103 on Mon 16th Aug 2010 13:30 UTC
Member since:

sells clothing,footwear,handbags,Sunglasses
Online Store,Get Name Brand Fashion From 12USD Now!

Our Website:

Our main product list is as follows:

1. Fashion Sports shoes: $35
Shox,Dunk,Jordan, Air max, Air force,Adidas, Puma,Prada,D&G, Chanel,Gucci, Lacoste,


2. Fashion T-Shirt $14 & Jeans $30 & Jacket $37:
AF,BBC,Evsiu,Juicy,GGG,Burberry,ED-Hardy,Chanel,G-Star,Red monkey,Christian

Audigie,sinful,lacoste,POLO,Armani,Smet,Baby,Levis,Justcavalli,Versace ,True Religion,Artful Dodger,Rock,Coogi,Crown


3.Fashion Handbags:$$35
LV , Prada , Chanel ,D&G, Fendi , EDhardy, Burberry , MIUMIU ,Gucci ,Chloe , Juicy and Chole,Burse,etc.

4. brand watches(rolex,Longines…)$50
belt(d&g, gucci, prada, chanel, burberry…. )$14,
hats $12
sunglasses $12 (Police,rayban,gucci,prada,LV)

Deliever: Nearly 5 days arrive your home or your friends’ adress by EMS,DHL,UPs !!!!!!!!!!!

Looking forward your visit.asdsf @#$R$$

Reply Score: 1