dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2010-08-10 11:21:22: As we discussed in great detail yesterday, Google and Verizon have unveiled what they are claiming is a consumer-friendly framework for network neutrality rules. ..


Taget

join:2004-07-29

Weird

quote:
gutted FCC, giant loopholes, and largely-meaningless rules
That sounds remarkably like the current system!

kernelpanic

join:2010-07-06
Crowley, TX

smoke and mirrors

quote:
which is critical to U.S. global competitiveness.

like this has ever been a concern of either corporation


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

If you buy their argument, then protections are MORE needed

Their argument is that wireless is special, and it usually amounts to problems with collisions and propagation and hidden nodes (all of which, by the way, are mitigated by the technology, but anyway...).

Let's say that argument is true. Doesn't it mean that there is more pressure than ever to squeeze whatever money they can out of such an inefficient network? Aren't there more pressures than ever for their highest-dollar 'content' to get priority?

The effective truth is that the above constraints result in a lower throughput speed and creates incentive for wireless operators to build (to create more cells and zones and decrease distance and power to eliminate speed loss). These constraints encourage good behavior.

Allowing operators to prioritize in the name of 'fairness' encourages operators to skate by on the network that they have through artificial means. Those customers close to their first link get a poorer-quality experience so that those who are distant can get a better-quality experience. That's not right -- we want the company to be in the business of constantly building out toward those distant customers.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Cape Cod, MA -- KE1MO
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords

guppy_fish
Premium
join:2003-12-09
Lakeland, FL
kudos:3

+1 for Karl Creative Names!

Verizoogle to be added to the Webster dictionary thanks to Karl


Lokro
Premium
join:2002-12-28
Loveland, CO

Google's slogo

Don't be evil is null and void now that Google has shareholders to answer too.


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Android is multi-vendor and multi-carrier tool

Trying to claim that Android is the glue that turns Google & Verizon in to some illegal cartel is straining credulity. Android is used on dozens of smartphones from many vendors and is also used on all of Verizon's competitors systems. Google has no reason to favor Verizon over any of Verizon's Android using competitors. But what they do have in common is a desire to limit an overreaching government in order to protect an Internet that has and will do better without government intervention. And what they also have in common are large well funded lobbying arms that will be much more effective in protecting the Internet if they coordinate their message and don't work at cross-purposes.
--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC?


Sabre
Di relung hatiku bernyanyi bidadari

join:2005-05-17
reply to Lokro

Re: Google's slogo

"Don't be evil. That's our job."


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39

2 edits

1 recommendation

reply to FFH5

Re: Android is multi-vendor and multi-carrier tool

Trying to claim that Android is the glue that turns Google & Verizon in to some illegal cartel is straining credulity.
Nobody said this, or even used the phrase "illegal cartel," except you. Trying to ensure no neutrality rules apply to wireless is very clearly about protecting future Android revenues, and sure -- Android's on multiple carriers -- and AT&T also doesn't want any neutrality rules applied to wireless.
But what they do have in common is a desire to limit an overreaching government in order to protect an Internet that has and will do better without government intervention.
Yes, my free marketeer friend, we've heard this song before. Except that companies like Verizon literally write many of our telecom laws to protect their monopoly and duopoly status, so this "government is inherently dysfunctional" while "industry simply wants no regulation" meme is not only dead wrong, it's tired.


tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1

3 edits

1 recommendation

reply to FFH5
I too fail to see why Karl continues to push Android as the root of all evil. While it's well known that Karl's love for AllThingsApple clouds his judgement with regards to Apple's primary mobile competitor, it's a stretch to assume Android's the evil impetus suddenly driving this network neutrality sham that Verizon and Google are pushing.
In other words: Karl, when trying to trash Android, use a more believable argument. Kthx.

As for the Verizon/Google proposal - I believe that if it somehow was only good for Verizon and/or Google, we'll very soon hear from Time Warner, Comcast, ATT, Sprint, T-Mobile, coming out for and against the proposal for any number of reasons. ATT has no desire to see Google *OR* Verizon succeed, so i am waiting with bated breath to see what their response to this is. And wireline broadband no doubt sees wireless as competition and would likely also fight to ensure that no specific method of internet access gets preferential treatment.

I believe that it's not nearly as consumer friendly as they say, but I hope to see a *reasonable* response from the FCC or consumer groups which takes economic needs into account.

Unfortunately so far i've only seen full-on-liberal approaches (ie the internet should be controlled by the government to somehow maintain its status as a neutral communications medium) or full on pro-business (ie Verizon, Comcast, and Google should be able to provide a second, private internet for high-wealth customers, and a low-end internet for the rest of us).
I'd love to see an approach which works for both...
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39

1 edit

1 recommendation

I too fail to see what connection Karl found to Android. While it's well known that Karl's love for AllThingsApple clouds his judgement
Sigh. I criticize Apple constantly. Your comment is silly.
ATT has no desire to see Google *OR* Verizon succeed, so i am waiting with bated breath to see what their response to this is.
As noted, AT&T doesn't want neutrality rules on wireless for the same reasons. Their only public response so far:
"We remain committed to achieving a consensus solution to the Net neutrality issue, either with the FCC or with the Congress. In that sense, the Verizon-Google agreement demonstrates that it is possible to bridge differences on this issue."

33358088
Premium
join:2008-09-23
kudos:2

see what happens when you let lawyers run stuff

they make utter stupid decisions and ones that always cost mankind more money

"and when the revolution came ...the lawyers were the first to go"
- hitchhikers guide to the galaxy


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

1 edit
reply to FFH5

Re: Android is multi-vendor and multi-carrier tool

said by FFH5:

Trying to claim that Android is the glue that turns Google & Verizon in to some illegal cartel is straining credulity.
But you must either refer to this as Verizon+Google as a separate joint policy position differing from the actual preferred positions of the separate companies -- or -- you must believe that Verizon has it's hand up Google's puppet butt. I tend to believe the first, optimist that I am. I, however, see the result of the latter.

It's -not- in Google's best interest to make fast lanes on wireless because Google would then have to pay the extra toll. For what? Google versus who else now or in the future? Google doesn't possibly believe that it's lost it's ability to get and maintain a #1 position among net destinations and must resort to blocking or degrading others to keep it. So Google must simply not believe the wireless position suggested by the joint position.

The guys with nothing to lose here are Verizon. Either way, they're carrying the traffic. They've got the regulatory axe to grind. Why not try to make someone else be its puppet?

I'm just surprised that Google fell for it.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Cape Cod, MA -- KE1MO
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords

hoyleysox
Premium
join:2003-11-07
Long Beach, CA

Maybe VZ will stop pushing Bing

It pisses me off that my VZ wireless phone tries so hard to make me use bing instead of google. I type in google and it says bing across the top of the screen.


baineschile
2600 ways to live
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI

Eh

I like Googizon better

Or Verizioogle


Anon Observe

@carlson.com

NN and wireless

Wireless spectrum is a limited resource and I get that as more and more people use wireless it becomes harder and hard to offer unlimited usage which unfortunately is why the carriers will all move to tiered pricing.

But my understanding is that network neutrality has more to do with the kind of traffic, not the amount of traffic that is transported across a carriers infrastructure and the carrier's ability to restrict or throttle that traffic.

That said, not sure why Google would be arguing for what amounts to a wireless exemption to network neutrality. One would think that they would want any and all types of traffic delivered to/from their Android devices so they can search/target/monetize it. Unless of course they are protecting their largest market of Android devices in the US (Verizon). Seems counter-intuitive until that link is made. If Verizon decided to stop selling Android when they get the iPhone, it would put a lot of pressure on Google. Its all about the Benjamins.


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39
reply to baineschile

Re: Eh

Yeah I struggled with that. I almost went with Voogle.


Trimline
Premium
join:2004-10-24
Windermere, FL
Reviews:
·ObiVoice
·Bright House
·Callcentric
·voip.ms
said by Karl Bode:

Yeah I struggled with that. I almost went with Voogle.
I really like Voogle. It has the ring of Voodoo in it. Voogle economics...


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
reply to Karl Bode

Re: Android is multi-vendor and multi-carrier tool

said by Karl Bode:

Trying to claim that Android is the glue that turns Google & Verizon in to some illegal cartel is straining credulity.
Nobody said this, or even used the phrase "illegal cartel," except you.
Of course you IMPLIED it by using the title "Verizoogle" and don't deny that was what you meant.
--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC?


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39
That makes completely no sense.

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23

Question about Android

If Android is open-source, in what way does Google financially benefit from Verizon's selling of HTC handsets ?

Is it though Google displaying ads to HTV handset owners, or is there a more direct transfer of cash between Verizon and Google Inc ? (or does Google get a cut in HTC sales ?)

algollyer

join:2010-01-08
Forest Hills, NY
reply to Karl Bode

Re: Android is multi-vendor and multi-carrier tool

I agree with Karl, and so did the Cnet editor on G4TechTV.


tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1
said by algollyer:

I agree with Karl, and so did the Cnet editor on G4TechTV.
Lemme guess, so do Engadget and Gizmodo.

I'm shocked, SHOCKED!