Feeds

back to article Google, Verizon deny secret FCC end run

As The Reg reported early Thursday, the Wall Street Journal claims that Google and Verizon are in talks to create a tiered pay system for content. The same sub-rosa confabs were also cited by The New York Times, which said that an agreement could be reached "as soon as next week". According to the WSJ, "a tentative agreement on …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Anonymous Coward

Waiting for the googlebois

I thought Google did no evil?

This statement is complete tosh, written by PR depts, doesnt answer the questions or concerns. Expect to see tiered services on your Android handset in the next year.

0
0

Law making in action

Yep, this is what it all comes down to.

"If you're wondering which side will prevail, here's a bit of interesting data to chew on: according to a recent report, the anti net-neuts outspent the pro net-neuts by four-to-one in lobbying fees during the first quarter of 2010."

0
0
FAIL

Please, El Reg ...

""If you're wondering which side will prevail, here's a bit of interesting data to chew on: according to a recent report, the anti net-neuts outspent the pro net-neuts by four-to-one in lobbying fees during the first quarter of 2010."

The anti's have to outspend the pro's because their ideas do not scale ... as in "economies of". Each little consumer screwing must have its own little loophole.

0
0
Alert

What's really going on here

Verizon: "Our goal is an Internet policy framework that ensures openness and accountability."

FCC: "Freedom and openness of the Internet for consumers and entrepreneurs"

Is Verizon saying we need more "accountability" on the Internet? That sure matches up with Eric Schmidt's "true anonymity is too dangerous." Meanwhile the FCC is only looking out for the "consumers and entrepreneurs" when they're consuming and producing. What about the Internet as a free platform for all kinds of innovation outside the consumption bubble? Lots of slippery language from all sides, but none of the players here are denying their desire for Internet to become a controlled platform centered on commerce.

Guess what, people? The producers and consumers are not going to save the world. Personal freedom, good communication, and de-financialization will save us. Pushing the Internet even an inch towards the direction of cable TV is idiocy — just more of the same authoritarian nonsense spreading like bacteria into life these days. Are you smart enough to understand this and buck the trend, Google?

1
0
Silver badge
Alert

Hair raising

I don't know if the New York Times story is true, but the idea of paying for giving priority to your data makes me really uncomfortable. This could easily lead to high-speed delivery for rich corporations web sites only, and 9600 baud modem speed for everybody else. Google can easily pay a million a week so as to offer a speedy youTube, but who else can? Especially among newcomers?

At least, Google is denying any such plans... for now. But I'm going to be jumping at shadows for a long while.

And I did see at least one article (Henry Blodget on Business Insider, may he rot) stating that "of course ISPs Should Be Able To Charge Higher Rates For Premium Traffic", on the lines that "pipe companies" have spent billions on infrastructure, they should be allowed to charge anyway they want. Lovely.

0
0
Alert

Peering?

My ISP and Verizon are not the same people.

So: if Verizon traffic is to be prioritised to my door... Verizon will (presumably) need to pay my ISP a cut to do the same on their behalf (otherwise my ISP will treat their traffic with the same priority or contempt as all others).

If my ISP starts cocking around with my communications, and the service deteriorates for me (because they are carrying Verizon traffic in preference to my own) I will dump them and move to someone who isn't faviouring Verizon over me... who knows, perhaps the ISP would be content with that eventuality because Verizon are paying so much more?

It sounds like the sort of thing that makes sense to people who say words like 'monetize' when really the word they are looking for is 'destroy'. For example 'if we do this we can finally {monetize|destroy} the internet'... and for that reason, hopefully, it is likely to die.

Conversely, if Verizon pay so much that subscribers can be bought off by ultra-cheap ISP deals (subsidised by Verizon payments for censorship/anti-competitive throttling) it might work.

But I hope that never happens. Imagine a world where you can only read what your ISPs anti-competitive censored monetized throttled walled garden offers you?

0
0
Flame

Interesting

So you have choices for ISPs in your area? I don't. I have Cox via cable or possible a really slow Qwest DSL (they don't have high speed DSL in my part of the city.) I envy people who can shop for an ISP based on service and/or cost.

0
0

This sounds suspiciously like Google's Ad scam

Does anyone else notice the similarity here between how this would work, and how Google's keyword thing works? As has been said in the past, everyone has to pay google to ensure that their products receive the best ranking for their keywords, such that in the end, the results are returned in the same way as though no-one had paid anything.

Equally so, everyone would have to pay for the premium service for their sites in order to deliver the same level of service as their competitors, such that in the end the sites will all run at the same speed as though no-one had paid anything.

I don't like this at all.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.