Protesters denounce Google plan for 'two-tier internet' ( Net neutrality )

BBC News ^ | 14 August 2010 | Maggie Shiels

[george76]

Google and Verizon suggest treating fixed line services differently to wireless and some specialised content.

This would allow net providers to give priority to certain online traffic.

Protesters outside the famed Googleplex said this would create a "pay-to-play" service and urged Google to live up to its famous motto "don't be evil".

"Companies like Google have benefited from a free and open internet and their plan will destroy that," said James Rucker ...

Google and Verizon made their announcement after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ended closed-door talks with service providers and internet companies to find a consensus on the principle of net neutrality.

The FCC is trying to navigate what it has called a "third way" to resolve the issue after its authority was called into question when a court ruled it had no power to sanction Comcast for slowing some net traffic.

Net neutrality is seen as central to the government's broadband plan to provide high speed access to every citizen by 2020.

[dfwgator]

Make no mistake, “Net Neutrality” is the camel’s nose getting into the tent, which will ultimately result in the government having complete control of the Internet.

[Fred]

We are doomed.....

http://scroogle.org

[AnotherUnixGeek]

Make no mistake, “Net Neutrality” is the camel’s nose getting into the tent, which will ultimately result in the government having complete control of the Internet.

This would be a bad thing, without question. But so is the alternative that Verizon and Google have cooked up, with AT&T leading the cheers. Wireless Internet connectivity will be tiered, bundled, walled off and both far less interesting and more expensive than the Internet is today.

Remember the walled-garden days of AOL and CompuServe, before they let their customers onto the Internet? That's what the wireless Internet world is devolving back into - privileged connection speeds for the Blockbuster streaming video crapware that comes pre-installed on your phone or tablet and charges you $10 to view some movie, a lower connection speed for some startup company with some brand-new idea that requires high-bandwidth to work.

My position on this pretty much follows that of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. I'm opposed to the FCC's grab for open-ended authority to regulate the Internet, which can and will lead to government imposing it's will on the Internet. But the Google-Verizon proposal to let wireless Internet providers favor some content over others is equally dangerous. What I'd like to see is a guarantee that ISPs will not discriminate between any content on the Internet - hopefully issued by the ISPs themselves in response to overwhelming customer demand.

[calcowgirl]

Remember the walled-garden days of AOL and CompuServe, before they let their customers onto the Internet?

I had been using the internet for several years before I logged on to AOL from a friends house.

I remember screaming "HELP! How do I get out of here?????"

It was so obnoxious.

[eclecticEel]

Remember the walled-garden days of AOL and CompuServe, before they let their customers onto the Internet?

No. I was never a customer of either company; but since no one was forcing me to be, I hardly know why it should bother me if someone else liked the product they provided.