Comments on: Google and Verizon's Net Neutrality Compromise is Pretty Weak

By: Google Eyes Mobile As The Key To 2011: Tech News and Analysis «

Google Eyes Mobile As The Key To 2011: Tech News and Analysis « — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 19:02:20 +0000

[...] emphasis on mobile also offers a hint as to why Google was anxious to get a deal on network neutrality done. With so much riding on mobile, Google was probably eager to compromise on the issue, which deals [...]

By: YouTube to Mobile Operators: Partner Up, Or Else: Video «

YouTube to Mobile Operators: Partner Up, Or Else: Video « — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 18:47:18 +0000

[...] one reason Google veered from its net neutrality stance for wireless network when it struck a compromise with Verizon early this year that said carriers may need differentiated traffic management on mobile networks. [...]

By: Google, Verizon and net neutrality: reaction from the web

Google, Verizon and net neutrality: reaction from the web — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:46:21 +0000

[...] Stacey Higginbotham, GigaOm [...]

By: McAdam as Verizon COO: More Google, Less Neutrality: Tech News «

McAdam as Verizon COO: More Google, Less Neutrality: Tech News « — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:30:54 +0000

[...] of course. But the bigger concern by this tech “bro-mance” deals with net neutrality. Google and Verizon have jointly outlined a stance on net neutrality and that stance allows wireless…. In fairness, it was Verizon’s Seidenberg that publicly penned the company’s net [...]

By: Jon Stewart on Internet Exploiters aka Google & Verizon

Jon Stewart on Internet Exploiters aka Google & Verizon — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 19:26:56 +0000

[...] the Google/Verizon proposal over network neutrality. And here we were writing post after post after post to essentially point out how Google changed its [...]

By: Net Neutrality Groups Plan Google Protest

Net Neutrality Groups Plan Google Protest — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:51:35 +0000

[...] Free Press, who plan to protest at the search giant because it has teamed up with Verizon to put forth a legislative framework that has the potential to create a two-tiered Internet by allowing ISPs to discriminate against web [...]

By: fractura.net » Neutralidade da Internet: o pacto Google Verizon

fractura.net » Neutralidade da Internet: o pacto Google Verizon — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 18:46:59 +0000

[...] surgimento de uma internet a duas velocidades é o que refere Om Malik. «A tentação de aceitar este compromisso como bom para todos, poderá forçar uma versão de [...]

By: Robin

Robin — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 18:32:03 +0000

I think we are circling around a couple of facts without really explaining them. From what I understand, Google has agreed that a wireless providers should be able to differentiate between the types of content. To give a reduced and artificially simple example, consider this to be video versus non-video.

Google believes that Verizon should not discriminate between video from Hulu versus video from Youtube. That Comcast should not prefer NBC.com video over Youtube.com video. See where we are going…?

However, Google does seem to agree that video from Youtube should be less preferred than the comment entries associated with a video. That is that video can be limited in order to allow other types of traffic (text, DNS queries, etc) to function by having precedence over video.

Now, it so happens that most of what comes out of Youtube is video, but at least Youtube will not be killed because of other video coming (hypothetically) from a new Verizon video partner.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:43:03 +0000

@ Marcos

If you want to stick with road analogies we can do that:

It doesn’t matter how many times the road owner charges you to use the road. What matters is the total amount charged – the revenue based of the road. Toll roads today could put tollbooths every five feet if they wanted and lower the price to fractions of a penny. It would be less efficient, but what matters is that it costs x amount to get to my destination. Whether they charge me once, 10 times, a monthly fee, or charge the locations I visit, all that matters is the total amount of cost to me (revenue to them).

Why this is important is that if the toll road operator began raising prices to the point that they were raising more money in revenue than it costs to build and maintain the road as well as an additional reasonable profit, a competitor would surely step in and build a competing road to get a piece of the action.

What this means for internet: it matters less how many times we are charged than what the total amount paid is. Competition or merely the threat of competition is enough to hold down prices.

Back to roads: why isn’t it reasonable that the road operator charge the guy who is clogging traffic and pulling a large trailer that blocks two lanes more than the motorcycle that takes up less space and doesn’t clog traffic? But if the guy with the trailer desperately needs to move his trailer right now, why shouldn’t he be allowed to pay an extra amount for the reserved right of way? (The president’s motorcade already closes down highways when necessary.)

By: tom

tom — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 13:31:41 +0000

if we have net neutrality for wired but not wireless than what is stopping the major telecoms from slowing the buildup of wired networks and than increasing the price so that most consumers move over to the wireless networks that they are free to control as they please.

with 4G networks coming what we really need is head on competition between wired and wireless. legally there should be no distinction.