What I'd really like to know, though, is what's up with WSJ's picture of Obama?
Posted on 12/15/2008 8:39:47 AM PST by Sammy67
The celebrated openness of the Internet -- network providers are not supposed to give preferential treatment to any traffic -- is quietly losing powerful defenders.
Google Inc. has approached major cable and phone companies that carry Internet traffic with a proposal to create a fast lane for its own content, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Google has traditionally been one of the loudest advocates of equal network access for all content providers.
At risk is a principle known as network neutrality: Cable and phone companies that operate the data pipelines are supposed to treat all traffic the same -- nobody is supposed to jump the line.
Barack Obama, speaking to Google employees about net neutralityNet neutrality advocacy videoAl Gore, on net neutralityLawrence Lessig, speaking at Stanford UniversityBut phone and cable companies argue that Internet content providers should share in their network costs, particularly with Internet traffic growing by more than 50% annually, according to estimates. Carriers say that
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
The net neutrality nuts are going to love this; especially coming from their supposedly “not evil” Google.
Google has been evil ever since they climbed into bed with the Chicoms and censorship there.
Which many here on FR supported as “free trade”.........
You're absolutely right. Individuals and corporations should NOT be free to spend their own money where they choose. The government knows better, so we should leave such decisions up to them. Right?
No, I think American business should uphold some American values.
Such as freedom and liberty.
Not go into active connivance and collaboration with the enemy.
An attempt to control all. Pretty soon the “Internet” will just be called “Google”
The enemy? Who would that be? You're not suggesting, I hope, that Al Qaeda is doing business with Google?
Only a fool would commit serious stuff to the google cloud without knowing that it could all disappear forever at a moments notice.
Now maybe google will abandon both net neutrality and political "neutrality" just as they are abandoning search result neutrality (see posts here on FR.)
At last the true reason for Google’s support for Obama is revealed.
Such as freedom and liberty.
Not go into active connivance and collaboration with the enemy.
Now wait a minute. You were criticizing free trade with your previous comment, unless I'm mistaken.
What do you propose as an alternative to the way things are? If the status quo is unacceptable, then what?
...or are you just criticizing some specific decisions of a few individuals, but not the principle of free trade?
Could one of you help me? I am minimally computer literate. I have been disappointed with Google for some time. I try to find something such as the best “widget.” All I get is advertisement from sites that sell widgets. Now I find they decide what I read. How do you get rid of them? They are not listed on my computer software list so I can’t seem to remove them. If you know how to do it, go slowly in explaining how to do it. Number 2 is recommending another search engine. Thanks.
That doesn’t even make sense.
This is the stupidest argument I've seen in months, and I scan Democratic Underground to find stuff worthy of calling to PJ's attention for the DUmmie FUnnies.
If there were no content providers, nobody would buy Internet services from the telco companies. If anything, the latter are free-riding on the former, not vice versa.
George W. Bush skipped out on his National Guard obligations, according to documents reviewed by CBS News.
Until we see the originals of these "documents", there is no story here.
What I'd really like to know, though, is what's up with WSJ's picture of Obama?
bookmark
"They made ME the President of the United States! HA HA HA!!!"
Could you please clarify if you are A) browsing to the Google website (http://www.google.com), B) using the Google search bar ( a tool bar at the top of Internet Explorer ) or C) just using the Internet Explorer search, which happens to link to Google?
I was referring to the corporate motto, check out point #6. Since the the company was started by a group of San Fran moonbats who were card-carrying members of the corporations are evil crowd, they had to tell themselves that they would be different from all those other wicked corporations when they started their company. Which of course only adds to the irony when they turn out to be one of the least ethical companies out there.
The enemy I speak of are the Chicoms.
I’m criticizing the actions of businesses and individuals who would sell out their nation and what it stands for to make a nickel.
I’m not criticizing the principle of free trade, however those who engage in free trade need to do so with some moral principles and some patriotism.
The Chicoms are not our friends. An American business should not be helping them oppress and enslave their citizens just to make their balance sheets look better.
The US is at wear with China? Really? Who knew?
Think Chicaps.......
One does not need to be currently at war with a nation for them to be an enemy.
Really? So China is an enemy of the US? It must be hiding that fact real well, since China is (1) the second largest trading partner with the US, and (2) continually finances the US Government as the largest holder of US Treasury securities.
If that's an enemy, who is America's friend?
Countries aren't people and shouldn't be treated as such. Countries operate according to their national interests, not according to "trust" and "loyalty" and other assorted nonsense.
It is not in the interests of China or the United States to be "enemies," and, as a consequence, they aren't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.