Feeds

back to article Top lawmakers slam Google-Verizon 'net neut' scheme

The "suggested legislative framework" for internet regulation proposed last week by Google and Verizon has run into a buzz saw of opposition from four well-connected US Congressfolks. "The recent proposal by Google and Verizon of an industry-centered net neutrality policy framework reinforces the need for resolution of the …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
WTF?

Mike, do you think you will have a job when this comes to pass?

"Whether you side with the freetards or the greedheads, the smart money is on the anti-net-neuts in this dog fight."

Why would you say that? If net neutrality ends, have you got any idea how much money the register.co.uk will be paying the ISP to serve up this website? Do you honestly think the reg can pay all those fees with only the advertising on this site? Do you think el reg will have money for your job when they need to pay those kind of bills?

If net neutrality stops, internet as we know it and all the job opportunities (especially in small IT companies that are growing) will just stop to exist.

The smart money (being if you want to invest in your country's future) would be on the freetards in this case.

Simple argument for jane and joe: do you wish to pay 30 euro's a month extra for news and youtube? If yes then let the ISP have their way...

3
0
Gold badge
Pint

This will be a fun thread.

I will interject early with an off topic post: everyone take a breather before posting. Everything that can be said on this topic has been said already. In the mean time, life is full of things that are good and happy. In my case cats, coffee, and similar small enjoyments. I am sure you have such things as well…perhaps whatever you calming equivalent to petting a cat is should be undertaken /before/ the violent vitriol posting.

If not, well…

…have at ‘er gents.

Pint because there’s no popcorn icon, and this thread’s will probably be entertaining...

0
2
Flame

Damm Colonials!

Dear America!

The World Wide Web is a British invention, so before we have to pay a visit to you savages and pay waste to this poppycock, consider the fact that it is not your ball and you can't take it home just because you aren't getting your way, at least without a stiff talking to.

~ Great Britain

1
0
Silver badge
Flame

Your ball, Our court.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even if Brits invented the Web, the Internet on which it runs has an undeniable American pedigree going all the way back to the ARPAnet which was built in the event of WW3. So it may not be our ball, but you're playing in our court, and if you don't want to suddenly find the entrance locked, then perhaps you should learn to play nice.

0
2
FAIL

Or, to put it another way

These reps are afraid the free market might succeed, further reducing the relevance of the FCC overlords. This is unsurprising, since their party's fix for pretty much everything has been "more regulation." How's that mortgage modification program workin' out, guys?

0
1
Unhappy

I think these four "Congressfolks" are making a good point.

Google and Verizon are both sides of the emerging Internet spying game. Google want access to the data streams that Verizon carry and Verizon wants more money which they can get from Google spying on its data streams, I mean users. Therefore both these companies want to control how the Internet evolves for their own gain, so they can maximise their profits from spying, I mean advertising and in the process they seek to integrate themselves ever more into the Internet and therefore into everyone’s lives. Plus these corporations also gain additionally from killing off the little guys who may have otherwise come up with good new ideas which could have unseated the corporations in the future. (Just as IBM fell behind to Microsoft and then Microsoft got beaten by companies like Google (and to a lesser extent also Amazon and eBay)).

The corporations will subvert the Internet for their own gain. No matter what they say, they are not really interested in a truly fair open Internet.

@"I am concerned that the proposal put forward by Google and Verizon could have the effect of choking off much of the most important, creative, and valuable contributions the Internet can make to the idea-driven economy of the 21st century"

So in other words, Google doublespeak is calling their idea "net neutrality", yet what they want will actually have the opposite effect and therefore cause as much damage. So once again more Google doublespeak, like "doing no harm" etc..

There is only one thing for it, Google and Verizon will now have to spend a fortune (pocket money for them) on supporting (and therefore buying) political opponents to these four "Congress folks". Of course that won't slow up or stop companies like Google continuing their chess game of winning greater control over the Internet and therefore ultimately over our lives and how we spend our money. :(

1
0
Dead Vulture

To quote V

"Every time I've ever seen this world change, its been for the worse."

1
0
Happy

Ch ch ch ch changes

Yeah, it's annoying that we in the West live so long nowadays, in such good health, with such an enormous amount of leisure. Apparently the only way to fill those endless hours is with doomwringing and handmongerging. I'm with Trevor Potts on this one, except I'm off for cocktails.

0
0
Gold badge

*sigh*

Everyone adds an S. you'd think I'd be used to it by now, but it still causes some sort of involuntary twitch.

That said: CHANGE IS BAD. Maybe not for you or me, or even for the majority, but for every change that occurs SOMEONE loses out. That is why there is always someone fighting change. Think about it: the people with all the power and money right now have that money because of how the world works today. Change how the world works and they might well lose out.

Or, they might change it so that the milled masses lose out a little bit more, and they gain. Either way, Change is always bad for SOMEONE. The question is simply…

…who?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Merits? What are those? Can you flip'em on burgers?

Notice how the whole thing isn't about the underlying technology whatsoever. It's not even a little bit about the ideas intended to implement "fairness" that turned out to be broken. Meaning that whichever way this settles, the problem that sparked the whole thing in the first place will still be there, plus any battle damage incurred, and no solution.

Likely it won't settle at all, for there is no need to. It's merely yet another issue to bash each over the head with, and oh what fun the parties on each side have. The damage they leave in their wake is always the other party's fault, so nobody is responsible. Convenient, no?

1
0
This topic is closed for new posts.