Report: Google and Verizon to strike deal on 'tiered' internet

Discuss

31 Responses to “Report: Google and Verizon to strike deal on 'tiered' internet”

  1. brianary says:

    Paywalls also mean fewer people can spot your made-up content!

  2. ian71 says:

    “Consumers could soon see a new, tiered system” Consumers of Rogers Cable internet in the greater Toronto area have been subject to tiered internet, both in speed and in data volume, for ages.

    Learn from Toronto’s mistake: reject any and all forms of tiered internet.

  3. Cowicide says:

    At first when I started reading this from the headline I was like:

    this

    Then after reading the updates, I was like:

    this

  4. IamInnocent says:

    Let’s see: we will be paying for getting whatever speed they decide?

  5. Rev. Benjamin says:

    Wow. That really sucks.

  6. sgreddin says:

    NO! What can we do?

    • sgreddin says:

      http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-20012723-56.html

      Whoops, another example of why I should research before reacting.

      It’s not actually prioritizing Google over Verizon networks or placing any website or service provider over another. It’s placing priority levels on different types of media, which isn’t a bad idea. Sort of a compromise between treating everything on the net equally and having certain websites pay more to have a faster connection. After all, the reason why ISP’s want that is because media such as streaming videos and music are especially taxing on their lines. I mean, it takes a much longer time for a video to load than an article.

      C’mon, Google is fighting for us and for Net-Neutrality. Hell, they’ve gone so far as to make their widespread Android OS FREE TO ANYONE, something they could have easily used to make a pretty penny.

      I may simply be unknowledgeable but this may turn out to be a pretty good thing…? At the very least, Google is still upholding their mantra: Don’t be evil.

  7. Yano says:

    For fuck’s sake not you too, the NYT story is shit the Google/Verizon agreement basically guarantees net neutrality for broadband and keep the question of mobile open:

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20012703-260.html

    • Anonymous says:

      Yeah Google has, IIRC, always been pro-net neutrality, thanks for that link!

    • HajimeOwari says:

      Thanks. This post had me worried until I read your linked article. Now, I just need to move to a place with access to Verizon… (Comcast throttling is driving me nuts!).

    • Tim says:

      I seriously hope your article is the correct one.

      From your linked article: “As part of the deal, Verizon would agree not to selectively throttle Internet traffic through its pipes. That would not, however, apply to data traveling over its wireless network for mobile phones, the report says.”

      While I’m still not fond of wireless networks over mobile phones getting possibly preferential treatment (Facebook…), it’s good to hear that standard networks would be neutral.

    • cmjersey says:

      Accessing broadband through mobile devices is how most of us will connect to the web in the near future. This is like saying they won’t restrict dial-up but they will keep the question of cable connections open.

  8. BookGuy says:

    Besides the obvious suckage, this raises an interesting question: Is this just another step forward in corporate giants asserting control that benefits themselves and not us, or will the wily intertubes ultimately make this meaningless?

  9. Anonymous says:

    RE: YANO
    whether their agreement is good or bad, I think the governement should be making these rules. Not corporations in backroom deals.
    It doesn’t look good.

    • Anonymous says:

      Yeah, at least we can vote out government officials. It’s too bad that someone has to be in control at all, free the Internet!

  10. yesno says:

    The rumors about the VZ/GOOG deal. Yes, it theoretically is against third-party paid prioritization on wired networks, but closes the door on every other kind of unfair practice. And it even leaves a huge loophole on that–it’s not a flat bar. And it certainly does create a tiered Internet if Customer A can degrade Customer B’s service without B’s consent, by A paying to have his traffic prioritized.

    Type-based prioritization might sound good, but it could lock in certain applications. If you’re an upstart, how do you make sure that *your* voice or video gets priority? Does some magic algorithm decide? What if you use a new delivery method? Type-based prioritization makes less and less sense the more you look at it.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Didn’t go past the login page on NYT, so I didn’t RTFA, but it would appear that the NYT may not have the story quite right…

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-04/google-verizon-are-said-to-have-reached-deal-on-how-to-handle-web-traffic.html

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20012703-260.html

  12. dw_funk says:

    Whoops. In my defense, I sort of imagined that the New York Times wouldn’t screw up this badly.

  13. user123456 says:

    Any provider who starts prioritizing traffic is publicly admitting that their network is oversubscribed.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Other sources have things like this: “Specifically, Google and Verizon’s agreement could prevent Verizon from offering some prioritization to the biggest bidders who want better delivery of content on its DSL and fiber networks, according to the sources. But that wouldn’t apply to mobile phones, the sources said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the companies have not officially made their announcement.” http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/08/google_and_verizon_have_come.html?hpid=topnews

    Can’t read the NYT article cause of the pay wall.

  15. mccrum says:

    Link to Yano’s staggeringly better story instead. It includes this very helpful sentence:
    “As part of the deal, Verizon would agree not to selectively throttle Internet traffic through its pipes. That would not, however, apply to data traveling over its wireless network for mobile phones, the report says. ”

    So, to sum up: Verizon agrees to net neutrality for broadband, no agreement on phones in an effort to avoid FCC control.

  16. Anonymous says:

    uh.. you mean tiered mobile data, not tiered internet right? is someone competing for the must misleading headline award?

  17. Hugh says:

    Given that mobile networks are set to become the infrastructure that much of the new internet runs on, an explicit deal to monetize preferential data delivery on mobile is a significant concern in it’s own right.

  18. Rincewind says:

    Er… guys?

    http://twitter.com/googlepubpolicy/status/20393606477

    “@NYTimes is wrong. We’ve not had any convos with VZN about paying for carriage of our traffic. We remain committed to an open internet.”

  19. Church says:

    Yeah, all y’all who were in favor of legislating what ‘net neutrality’ means? Your lunch just got ate.

    You *should* have been more concerned about broadening the marketplace. Morons.

  20. John Napsterista says:

    OK, here’s yet another interpretation, from the Washington Post:

    Specifically, Google and Verizon’s agreement could prevent Verizon from offering some prioritization to the biggest bidders who want better delivery of content on its DSL and fiber networks, according to the sources. But that wouldn’t apply to mobile phones, the sources said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the companies have not officially made their announcement. And Verizon could offer some managed services — better quality to some Web sites such as those offering health care services, the sources said. But some analysts speculate that managed services could also include discounted YouTube and other services to FiOs customers at better quality.

    see: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/08/google_and_verizon_have_come.html?hpid=topnews

    So bottom line, according to the WaPo source: No net neutrality for mobile, but yes to net neutrality for wired service. In general, with some exceptions. For what that’s worth. Real bottom line: No one knows yet.

  21. Uniquack says:

    It would be a mistake to support this corporate behavior. By what right do Google and Verizon and other giants have to make agreements that use the public’s airwaves without governmental regulation? Inevitably, it will become incrementally worse for the public and more profitable for the corporations. That is the way of capitalism. The only defense is a strong government regulatory body which sets the rules by which these corporations can play. I only hope that the weakened and generally corporate-sycophantic FCC will stand up and show its own power to regulate in the public interest, annulling any and all collusion between Google, Verizon, etc.

  22. Anonymous says:

    Yet another story with NO SUBSTANTIATION.
    Even the update is merely based on a Bloomberg story.

    ALL THAT IS KNOWN: Verizon and Google are in negotiations and the FCC is involved.
    The negotiations were characterized as a COMPROMISE between net neutrality and tiered pricing. NO INFORMATION was provided by any of the linked sources that could state (with more than a guess) what the deal is and whether it will just pay lip service to net neutrality or really help preserve it. Google (publicly) has advocated net neutrality. Verizon, not so much.

  23. Daedalus says:

    This is confusing. Just tell me who to stab with my Revolutionary Proletariat Pitchfork, and I’ll do it. I’m in a stabbin’ mood.

  24. AirPillo says:

    lol… net neutrality story that turns out to be the polar opposite of what the initial response thought it was.

    Cory is here in spirit if not in person.

    (I’m just ribbing you, I would have made the same mistake)

  25. Rand1956 says:

    Speaking of made up … what paywall? Not going up until later in the year, last I heard.

Leave a Reply