3 ms·
>> 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 compro
by 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 agoAd hominem, I'm not going to bother to answer that.