| I like your new Google with horns! And I for one am surprised. |
|
| ... It's a shame really coming from a company like Google. I wonder what was they're reasoning if they had any. |
|
|
|
| Lets see, they just finally became and ISP AND a TV provider, Maybe their plans ARE to expand further than 2 cities. |
|
 gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | reply to michieru
It's a business, they will embrace net neutrality when its in thier best interest, and shun it if it isnt.
They have to grease the pipes to enter new markets. Thats how business is done in these emerging nations. The chinese and russians are probly bidding to do the same.
Knowledge is power, hearts and minds, and Google is the one to give it to them.
--
Let them eat FIBER! |
|
| meanwhile on g+ more and more US govt and hollywood types are pilling on
ergo more of us early adopters are leaving
BYE! |
|
| Is it... paying to give the people of Africa better internet access, because there is no other option that they have ? |
|
| It's a shame! Really that is all I have to say on this.
As a business it is NOT in their best interest to be paying any "extortion" fee to have data the ISP's customers request delivered. That is between the ISP and the customer and is an anti-internet flood gate they certainly don't want to open. |
|
 MikePremium,Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:1 | reply to michieru
Re: ... When Googled switched from an innovator to an advertiser... it started rolling down hill.
Current CEO is to blame. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| reply to Skippy25
Re: It's a shame! ...but if the ISP is the only game in town and is throttling Google's traffic heavily without payment, what choice does Google have? They can't just go over and set up a cellular network in an African country; they'd have to figure out how to buy spectrum first, and they'd be entering even more unknown territory than GFiber.
I don't think that Google is any less in favor of Net Neutrality than it ever has been; Net Neutrality is good for their bottom line. However they make enough money off of ads that sometimes the benefits (ad revenue) of tapping a captive market outweigh the troll toll imposed by the holder of that captive audience, unfortunately.
I mean, what do you do when an ISP won't budge on linking to your backbone in a reasonable manner, causing YouTube to download at one-fiftieth of the capacity of the pipe that you're using? |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast Business..
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·Clearwire Wireless
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to gaforces
Re: ... It's within Google's best interest for net neutrality even if they became a TV provider and ISP as ITALIAN926  states.
If a particular country did not have internet/Google I can also understand by greasing up the pipes for a new start-up business that is providing internet.
However this is the French who had Google before, and now want Google to pay for hyperlinks. I am sure Google and anyone else would say go screw yourself. So what I am wondering is what did the French tell Google for it's to accept the fee and go against it's principals. Google to pay for the content it indexes will also be Google's death. Which makes their business model not make any sense. |
|
 skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 | Troll tolls, throw some Chinese dissidents under the bus... ...standard MO for the company that doesn't do evil. |
|
 tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to Mike
Re: ... said by Mike:When Googled switched from an innovator to an advertiser... it started rolling down hill.
Current CEO is to blame.
Very sarcastic or you haven't been paying attention
Google Inc. has always been an advertiser
And the current CEO, invented google
Sort of like saying Steve Jobs didn't understand Apple computers.
The difference is Page in early 1998 wrote a paper decrying web advertisements and by incorporation in sept.1998 had already sold text ads "to support the service" which rapidly ramped the money machine we see today.
To think page and Brin didn't hope to monetize Google (at first thru academia) and haven't learned a bit about running a for profit business in the mean time is silly.
Evil is in the eye of the beholder. |
|
Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to iansltx
Re: It's a shame! said by iansltx:...but if the ISP is the only game in town and is throttling Google's traffic heavily without payment, what choice does Google have? Block all of their IP addresses and put up a page saying;
"Due to the unreasonable demands of your ISP, Google has blocked all of its IP addresses. If you want Google access back, tell your ISP." |
|
Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| Now that companies have a foot in the door... Now that companies have a foot in the door, they'll be coming out of the woodwork with their hands out. They'll want payments from Netflix, Wikipedia, the IMDb, online games and every other popular site.
Congratulations Google, you just sanctioned internet payola... |
|
| reply to iansltx
Re: It's a shame! 1.) Deal with the local authorities that should be enforcing net neutrality.
2.) In this case being Africa which probably doesnt have #1 just deal with it and/or ignore them as their number of subscribers and revenue certainly dont matter compared to the possible flood gate they could open. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | reply to Rekrul
Sounds like ESPN3...er...a great idea!
Oh wait...if Google can still make money while paying the ISP, sure, why not. |
|
 tmh
@comcastbusiness.net | reply to tshirt
Re: ... said by tshirt: To think page and Brin didn't hope to monetize Google (at first thru academia) and haven't learned a bit about running a for profit business in the mean time is silly.
Evil is in the eye of the beholder.
Sounds like running a for-profit business means you learn to eat your own young.
Just like in politics. |
|
Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to iansltx
Re: It's a shame! said by iansltx:Sounds like ESPN3...er...a great idea!
Oh wait...if Google can still make money while paying the ISP, sure, why not. Because they may be able to still make money while paying ONE ISP, but can they make money while paying 50 ISPs? Or 100? Or 1,000?
As soon as they start paying one ISP, every other ISP is going to whine that it's not fair that Google pays someone else and not them. |
|
 JuggernautIrreverent or irrelevant?Premium
join:2006-09-05
Kelowna, BC
kudos:2 | Turn the tables, Google How about Google just says, "Ok, we'll de-list you from our search engine completely."
I wonder how long it would take for the howls of protest to start. 
--
"I fear the day that technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots." ~ Albert Einstein |
|
| Yes,
That is EXACTLY what Google should do! Shove it right back down their throats and I'm not even a Google fan.
--
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/ |
|
