Verizone & Google according to national news service are looking at a pay for serving web pages at high speed to users when the pages are not hosted by them.
Canada, Britain, and USA are looking into the matter as an unfair business practice.
Public pays their ISP for a certain level of service and speed.
In the course of Internet browsing, they may encounter sites that are staggeringly fast but will only reap for the speed of package they paid for. Other sites, may be incredibly slow and that just comes with the territory.
Verizone and Google contend that more and more sites have such huge content that it takes a lot of time for the pages and content to transfer either through the use of poor design, embedded video, or large downloads. Thusly, they are looking to either limit or otherwise drop connections unless non-hosted web servers pay them for passing on the packets at high speed. Another alternative is to block such sites to users who do not pay them for high speed service of the sites.
A spokesperson for Google stated “If we can get web designers to improve page content to transfer fast, or get servers to understand that they should not be offering large downloads like Linux distributions, and movies, and streaming video, such measures would not be needed”
Hey, if government like China, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and others can ban the blackberry because it is so private they can’t snoop; then this should not be an issue.
> servers to understand that
> they should not be offering large downloads like Linux distributions,
> and movies, and streaming video, such measures would not be needed"
On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 04:06:02 +0000, techwiz03 wrote:
> A spokesperson for Google stated “If we can get web designers to improve
> page content to transfer fast, or get servers to understand that they
> should not be offering large downloads like Linux distributions, and
> movies, and streaming video, such measures would not be needed”
This translates for me to “the network would be SO much faster if it
weren’t for the darned users!”
Of those users, most have malware of some kind. Trojans, spyware, viruses, and a lot are being used for bot-nets and bot armies. Where I live, we have a stupid motorist law. Stupid Motorist Law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Maybe we should have a stupid internet users law?
Next time you post sensationalistic titles, please also post the source - also I did not find the quote you wrote there anywhere on the net, please do not edit source material to suit your personal populistic agenda.
As for the Google thing;
Google and Verizon Wireless said Thursday the two companies are not looking to create pay tiers for certain Web sites on mobile phones.
“We’ve not had any convos with (Verizon) about paying for carriage of our traffic,” Google said on Twitter. “We remain committed to an open Internet.”
A New York Times story about the talks “is mistaken,” said David Fish, Verizon’s executive director of media relations wrote on the company’s public policy blog. “It fundamentally misunderstands our purpose. As we said in our earlier FCC filing, our goal is an Internet policy framework that ensures openness and accountability, and incorporates specific FCC authority, while maintaining investment and innovation. To suggest this is a business arrangement between our companies is entirely incorrect.”
LOL! it is a great law for motorist and i practice a form of it
here…i guess i could call it the Smart Computer User Rule…like, if
i give my best advice and the user responds with (something like) “i
knew that” or “I’m not a n00b” i’m done trying to help…
On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 20:06:02 +0000, Jonathan R wrote:
> Of those users, most have malware of some kind. Trojans, spyware,
> viruses, and a lot are being used for bot-nets and bot armies. Where I
> live, we have a stupid motorist law. ‘Stupid Motorist Law - Wikipedia,
> the free encyclopedia’
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupid_Motorist_Law) Maybe we should have
> a stupid internet users law?
That’s not really how I read it - when they’re talking about streaming
video, to me that means Hulu, Netflix, and the like.
> On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 04:06:02 +0000, techwiz03 wrote:
>
>> A spokesperson for Google stated “If we can get web designers to improve
>> page content to transfer fast, or get servers to understand that they
>> should not be offering large downloads like Linux distributions, and
>> movies, and streaming video, such measures would not be needed”
>
> This translates for me to “the network would be SO much faster if it
> weren’t for the darned users!”
>
> Jim
>
Google could easily reduce all this nasty download traffic by sponsoring
that all PCs and Laptops come with the linux distro the user wants
preinstalled.
The silly thing is they need the “darned users” otherwise no income from
advertising, but this users should not produce too much traffic or shall as
I understand it “avoid traffic which cannot be turned into cash”?
On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 20:37:21 +0000, Martin Helm wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 04:06:02 +0000, techwiz03 wrote:
>>
>>> A spokesperson for Google stated “If we can get web designers to
>>> improve page content to transfer fast, or get servers to understand
>>> that they should not be offering large downloads like Linux
>>> distributions, and movies, and streaming video, such measures would
>>> not be needed”
>>
>> This translates for me to “the network would be SO much faster if it
>> weren’t for the darned users!”
>>
>> Jim
>>
> Google could easily reduce all this nasty download traffic by sponsoring
> that all PCs and Laptops come with the linux distro the user wants
> preinstalled.
> The silly thing is they need the “darned users” otherwise no income from
> advertising, but this users should not produce too much traffic or shall
> as I understand it “avoid traffic which cannot be turned into cash”?
Well, sure - as a former sysadmin myself, I often would lament that life
would be easier without the ‘darned users’, but of course the reality of
that situation would’ve eliminated the need for me to be employed there.
It’s just a rumor right now, but you also got to see who was reporting it, MSNBC, MS and NBC both have something to gain out of a Google boycott. Maybe it’s true… maybe it’s not. Till some whistle-blower from one of the companies comes forward I’m not going to worry about it.
Pardon me all to pieces … I apologize for not knowing what broadcast station my mom was flipping through when she called me to listen. We are in soapbox, a place to state strong views/comments about anything. To my knowledge, not all broadcast journalism is found on the net which does not change the fact that when I came in to listen some anchor was saying “Verizone & Google are looking at a pay for serving web pages at high speed to users when the pages are not hosted by them.”
I did not intensionally edit anything for any hidden agenda, what I am guilty of is relaying what I had heard over the idiot box as I felt it was a topic that may affect users of the Internet like us.
As for the rest of the post, I simply restated in point form what the anchor was stating about who is looking into the matter, some reasons as to why they would be looking into it, and what the anchor interpreted from the material the problem was and it’s reaching effect
Canada, Britain, and USA are looking into the matter as an unfair business practice.
Public pays their ISP for a certain level of service and speed.
In the course of Internet browsing, they may encounter sites that are staggeringly fast but will only reap for the speed of package they paid for. Other sites, may be incredibly slow and that just comes with the territory.
Verizone and Google contend that more and more sites have such huge content that it takes a lot of time for the pages and content to transfer either through the use of poor design, embedded video, or large downloads. Thusly, they are looking to either limit or otherwise drop connections unless non-hosted web servers pay them for passing on the packets at high speed. Another alternative is to block such sites to users who do not pay them for high speed service of the sites.
A spokesperson for Google stated “If we can get web designers to improve page content to transfer fast, or get servers to understand that they should not be offering large downloads like Linux distributions, and movies, and streaming video, such measures would not be needed”
When the anchor said that ‘Google spokesperson said’ Linux distributions were in the mix of heavy traffic and knowing that Android is a Linux based system I thought “What ! … The community needs to weigh in on this”
Then the anchor moved on to ‘RIM’ aka blackberry woes over governments wanting to ban blackberry because of the encypted operation keeping their eyes out. Thusly my comment “Hey, if government like China, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and others can ban the blackberry because it is so private they can’t snoop; then this should not be an issue.” as a tongue in cheek snub that two wrongs still don’t equal a right.
You are of course correct. That is what it is intended for, however, with all the viruses, trojan, bot-nets, malware, it is more likely that these are the ones hogging up the bandwidth.
I got a blueray player that has netflix and pandora and so on, recently. I really enjoy it. However, the number, right now, of users that have such devices, or do streaming media on their computers is still quite low. Hence the reason for my satirical remark.
As to posting a link, yes that would have been helpful, but I found plenty to sink your teeth into. premium internet - Google Search
Right at the top is the article that the OP was referring to. Whether or not it is the exact one, that, I don’t know. But then, there are 137 articles on the subject pertaining to Google and Verizon alone. Internet neutrality - Google News
So why not cut the OP some slack. This net neutrality thing has been going on for quite a while.
agenda’s agenda’s … how are we to know who/what to believe? Journalists, Blogs, Twitters, Forums all contain often conflicting details taken from different perspectives, different contexts. What is printed somewhere on the Internet can be referenced easily, but I project that the spoken word without aid of some recording/upload device still remains the oldest form of communication but lacks the permanence of provable repetition.
Not to suggest any conspiracy, why is it that Google searches, Yahoo searches, Ask searches seldom contain links (or all the same) to same content. Could it be that:
They don’t because they are different search engines?
They don’t because the path of their robots simply haven’t progressed down the same paths as others?
Some robots respect “no follow” or have different prioritizations then others?
Or as ns89 points out: who is reporting, why are they reporting, what are they reporting and most importantly is journalistic style got something to do with the swing of the yarn.
How many have done a search that gave no results and yet another person is overwhelmed with links. It’s a conspiracy the search tools are choosing what content they’re not gonna show
It’s a conspiracy the search tools are choosing what content they’re not gonna show