3 ms·

> Too many startups and small businesses are in jeopardy. No they're not.

alecco 16y ago
If Google/Verizon get their way any new (or existing but not participating) major competitor can be throttled to oblivion.
- patrickaljord 16y ago
  > any new (or existing but not participating) major competitor can be throttled to oblivion No they can't.
  - alecco 16y ago
    How do you know? Google and Verizon didn't pass a law, they made a mutually beneficial agreement. And the telcos have been saying they want to tax successful business running on their pipes for years. Note I wrote "can be", not "will be." This looks like a slippery slope for fair use and content independence.Perhaps the EU and/or other big groups outside Washington/USA can stop the telcos/ISPs. You assert your opinion without giving an explanation and without taking into account things will change (for good or bad.)
    - patrickaljord 16y ago
      > they made a mutually beneficial agreement No they didn't make any agreement. They made a proposal. Google has been advocating pure net neutrality on landline and wireless for the last 10 years. They've been rejected by the FCC, the telcos and the governement. After 10 years of getting nowhere, they are trying to get net neutrality on landline at least because right now there are no laws at all protecting net neutrality, wireless or not. No one has pushed as hard as Google for pure net neutrality, but after 10 years, Google needed to get real and face reality, no laws are going to get passed on pure/absolute net neutraliy, so they went for this proposal instead. Call them evil if you want... > You assert your opinion without giving an explanation So do you.
      - alecco 16y ago
        >> they made a mutually beneficial agreement > No they didn't make any agreement. Oh, come on, don't play the words. You know I meant they agreed on a compromise that is mutually beneficial so they started pushing a joint proposal. The context is very relevant: Verizon and Google are selling android phones at an unprecedented scale (save iPhones.) Google was the #1 lobbyist of Net Neutrality and Verizon is the second largest telco, lobbying against. Googles "facts" press release was signed by a former MCI attorney (Verizon subsidiary.) I seriously doubt the telcos will stop at this. Just one example, why would Google care to defend against P2P throttling? (Say, P2P video like Skype calls, the same kind of competitor they are already throttling or blocking.)
        patrickaljord 16y ago
        > You know I meant they agreed on a compromise that is mutually beneficial In what way not having net neutrality on wireless is beneficial to Google? > why would Google care to defend against P2P throttling? They do care on landline, on wireless there is not much they can do. They tried hard for the last 10 years but failed as nobody supported them (FCC, telcos and gov). So they are trying to at least get net neutrality on landline. Again, after ten years of battling for net neutrality, what do we have today? Nothing, not a single law to defend it. Google realized that it was not going to happen after lobying for it for years, so they at least are trying to get it on landline while putting wireless on hold (temporarily as the proposal says). What have you done to defend net neutrality?
        alecco 16y ago
        Ad hominem, I'm not going to bother to answer that.
  - shadowfox 16y ago
    Because?
    - moultano 16y ago
      The agreement spells that out pretty clearly. That's the point of it.
trunnell 16y ago
Well, it's all theoretical. But in theory, startups are in jeopardy. The #1 threat to ISPs is for their network to be commoditized-- there's little profit in dumb pipes. ISPs see a way out. They see billions of dollars of commerce happening on their networks and they want a cut. But that might not be what's good for society. Startups, at least, want dumb pipes, i.e. equal access to customers without a shakedown by last-mile network owners.

If Google/Verizon get their way any new (or existing but not participating) major competitor can be throttled to oblivion.

patrickaljord 16y ago
> any new (or existing but not participating) major competitor can be throttled to oblivion No they can't.
- alecco 16y ago
  How do you know? Google and Verizon didn't pass a law, they made a mutually beneficial agreement. And the telcos have been saying they want to tax successful business running on their pipes for years. Note I wrote "can be", not "will be." This looks like a slippery slope for fair use and content independence.Perhaps the EU and/or other big groups outside Washington/USA can stop the telcos/ISPs. You assert your opinion without giving an explanation and without taking into account things will change (for good or bad.)
  - patrickaljord 16y ago
    > they made a mutually beneficial agreement No they didn't make any agreement. They made a proposal. Google has been advocating pure net neutrality on landline and wireless for the last 10 years. They've been rejected by the FCC, the telcos and the governement. After 10 years of getting nowhere, they are trying to get net neutrality on landline at least because right now there are no laws at all protecting net neutrality, wireless or not. No one has pushed as hard as Google for pure net neutrality, but after 10 years, Google needed to get real and face reality, no laws are going to get passed on pure/absolute net neutraliy, so they went for this proposal instead. Call them evil if you want... > You assert your opinion without giving an explanation So do you.
    - alecco 16y ago
      >> they made a mutually beneficial agreement > No they didn't make any agreement. Oh, come on, don't play the words. You know I meant they agreed on a compromise that is mutually beneficial so they started pushing a joint proposal. The context is very relevant: Verizon and Google are selling android phones at an unprecedented scale (save iPhones.) Google was the #1 lobbyist of Net Neutrality and Verizon is the second largest telco, lobbying against. Googles "facts" press release was signed by a former MCI attorney (Verizon subsidiary.) I seriously doubt the telcos will stop at this. Just one example, why would Google care to defend against P2P throttling? (Say, P2P video like Skype calls, the same kind of competitor they are already throttling or blocking.)
      - patrickaljord 16y ago
        > You know I meant they agreed on a compromise that is mutually beneficial In what way not having net neutrality on wireless is beneficial to Google? > why would Google care to defend against P2P throttling? They do care on landline, on wireless there is not much they can do. They tried hard for the last 10 years but failed as nobody supported them (FCC, telcos and gov). So they are trying to at least get net neutrality on landline. Again, after ten years of battling for net neutrality, what do we have today? Nothing, not a single law to defend it. Google realized that it was not going to happen after lobying for it for years, so they at least are trying to get it on landline while putting wireless on hold (temporarily as the proposal says). What have you done to defend net neutrality?
        alecco 16y ago
        Ad hominem, I'm not going to bother to answer that.
- shadowfox 16y ago
  Because?
  - moultano 16y ago
    The agreement spells that out pretty clearly. That's the point of it.

trunnell 16y ago

Well, it's all theoretical. But in theory, startups are in jeopardy. The #1 threat to ISPs is for their network to be commoditized-- there's little profit in dumb pipes. ISPs see a way out. They see billions of dollars of commerce happening on their networks and they want a cut. But that might not be what's good for society. Startups, at least, want dumb pipes, i.e. equal access to customers without a shakedown by last-mile network owners.