Google/Verizon cutting deal to end net neutrality?

For the love of spice girls, please let this proposition fail.

I think the more pertinent question is "which tier are you guys going to get?"

I think the more pertinent question is "which tier are you guys going to get?"

gameguy6700

I'm sad enough that my kids will never get to experience the joy of dial-up... but this is way worse... :(

What do others out there think?nocoolnamejim

GoogleandVerizon, 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.

I see nothing wrong with this. If someone is willing to pay for premium services, why not provide the service. If you're a bigger company, you're going to get more web hits, thus requiring more bandwidth. We need to be very careful with how we're defining "net neutrality." I don't want to see this concept applied to the point of watering down QoS to satisfy some unspecified right to have to the same exposure and access as all other websites.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

I think the more pertinent question is "which tier are you guys going to get?"

Mercury_May2112

I'm sad enough that my kids will never get to experience the joy of dial-up... but this is way worse... :(

Wait, I can make it even worse:

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]What do others out there think?dreDREb13

GoogleandVerizon, 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.

I see nothing wrong with this. If someone is willing to pay for premium services, why not provide the service. If you're a bigger company, you're going to get more web hits, thus requiring more bandwidth. We need to be very careful with how we're defining "net neutrality." I don't want to see this concept applied to the point of watering down QoS to satisfy some unspecified right to have to the same exposure and access as all other websites.

I sincerely doubt that America even has the infrastructure to make NN possible in practice. If we were on the same terms as Europe and Japan where bandwidth wouldn't be at such a premium, then I'd say sure, let's go with it.

Well it's the fact that this could spur some more people to do the same, creating a domino effect that could bring an end to net neutrality. It's bad. Very bad. dreDREb13

[QUOTE="dreDREb13"] Well it's the fact that this could spur some more people to do the same, creating a domino effect that could bring an end to net neutrality. It's bad. Very bad. Mousetaches

If net neutrality goes under, it could easily be the death of the internet as we know it.

Needless to say, not terribly happy about this.

The consequences will never be the same.

Really, I believe something like this will fulfill Princes prophecy. I know that if I'm forced to spend an hour waiting to load up most sites I visit, or all the sites I visit close down because they cannot afford anymore fees, I'd just stop using the internet.

[QUOTE="dreDREb13"] Well it's the fact that this could spur some more people to do the same, creating a domino effect that could bring an end to net neutrality. It's bad. Very bad. Mousetaches

If sites have to pay more to have decent speeds, that DOES affect me. Not all websites are owned by billionaire corps. Alot of sites I go to are run by guys in an apartment who have to beg for donations to keep the site going due to already insane fees. Adding more fees will garuntee plenty of sites I visit have to shut down. And that does bother me.

This is why the internet should be made a utility.

I honestly have to wonder how much of an affect this will cause on the world. I'd expect "internet celebrities" to become extinct due to cost. Most won't have the money to afford to use the internet for what they do now. Many buisnesses that focus around the internet or rely on it would go under causing mass job loss. Basically killing an entire mega-industry.

Thats if net neutrality fully dies.

This has nothing to do with net neutrality. All it's saying is that companies that run websites can pay ISPs to have their services take priority in terms of speed. It says nothing about websites being blocked ...

Also I don't understand how this could push up costs to consumers. Won't this potentially reduce costs to consumers, as now ISPs will have an alternate source of income.

This has nothing to do with net neutrality. All it's saying is that companies that run websites can pay ISPs to have their services take priority in terms of speed. It says nothing about websites being blocked ...

daqua_99

That's exactly what net neutrality involves. Nobody says that websites will be blocked. Worst case scenario, all websites will download at dial-up speed unless the websites pay for faster services.

Also I don't understand how this could push up costs to consumers. Won't this potentially reduce costs to consumers, as now ISPs will have an alternate source of income.

daqua_99

The ISPs push this idea so they can get support for removing Net Neutrality. It may or may not be true. Nobody can predict what will happen. Although, a likely scenario would be to provide customers with a tiered service in which you have to pay more money to get websites that you want to download faster. Kind of like cable packages. However, unlike cable, the internet isn't limited to a few dozen websites.

I'm shocked Google would support this in any way.cd_rom

This is why the internet should be made a utility.

PBSnipes

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]

This is why the internet should be made a utility.

nocoolnamejim

I honestly have to wonder how much of an affect this will cause on the world. I'd expect "internet celebrities" to become extinct due to cost. Most won't have the money to afford to use the internet for what they do now. Many buisnesses that focus around the internet or rely on it would go under causing mass job loss. Basically killing an entire mega-industry.

Thats if net neutrality fully dies.

Pixel-Pirate

Wow.........this sucks

Luckily Congress makes the rules, not corporations, well officially they do. Although that doesn't raise my hopes.

:( These were the good days, boys. Enjoy 'em while you can.dreDREb13

This.:cry:

Without having read the article at all, I'm surprised Google would agree to this. They've gotten a lot of good favor by their pro-net neutrality stance, and I believe even had an article on their homepage about a year and a half ago when one of the other big providers was trying to do the same thing.

Edit: Here's the article I was talking about. It was 4 years ago. http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html

i don't think people are just going stand around and let this "proposal" come into effect and for all you guys who don't know what net neutrality is, well your experiencing it right now, its where sites run at the same speed and you can view anything content you want and ISP and the government cannot restrict what you can view so forth now what google and verizon want to do is modify it where certain sites "mainly sites owned by google and other big companies" run faster by allowing you to pay to get into a faster lane while if your not in the faster lane then basically your page is going to download at dial up speeds, so basically they wanna regulate it like they regulate cable tv and to me thats a no no

*loads shotgun* prepare for war my friends... this is a big no no