Verizon and Google Make Internet Transparency Proposal
Um...
How can you have more openness with more rules. Who are they that they have placed it upon themselves to have the right to govern the internet? That would be like I decide I'm going to be the prince of Chicago and now I will dictate how, when and where human traffic is allowed to flow thru my streets. Internet control should be illegal as the internet is a public space and not one entity's sole property.
I get what your saying. But essentially Google *IS* thed internet.
Btw, are you a regular cellphone enthusiast/consumer, like me? Or do you work in the wireless industry?
Btw, are you a regular cellphone enthusiast/consumer, like me? Or do you work in the wireless industry?
...
I agree it should be completely open and free, but the internet is now coming into a lot of new legislation, and a lot of people are starting to weigh in on how and what the internet can and should provide. ACTA will be interesting as well, some legis...
(continues)
(continues)
The internet is used by the public and is brought to us by companies. So saying the internet is public space is like saying the lobby of a hotel is public space. Hotel lobbies are pretty open in general and still have a few laws to prevent misuse. ...
(continues)
(continues)
Thanks for the "Pledge"
This entire pledge is so damn weak I don't even understand why the hell they bothered. And excluding the Wireless field is an interesting omission when you consider what Verizon's track record. (How are you Evo users enjoying your Skype service on 4G? ... oh right.)
The only real openness Google is pushing for is the openness towards carriers, not to consumers. And a carrier-controlled ecosystem should be exactly what they're arguing against.
This has been my beef with Google's mobile approach from day one (minus the brief period when they actually got Nexus One pricing right up until they cancelled it.) I don't know if they lack a spine (guessing by their YouTube efforts I'd say that's part of it), or if they're as dumb as the peopl...
(continues)
The only real openness Google is pushing for is the openness towards carriers, not to consumers. And a carrier-controlled ecosystem should be exactly what they're arguing against.
This has been my beef with Google's mobile approach from day one (minus the brief period when they actually got Nexus One pricing right up until they cancelled it.) I don't know if they lack a spine (guessing by their YouTube efforts I'd say that's part of it), or if they're as dumb as the peopl...
(continues)
South Korea will probably tell us, no?
You know, there is a simple solution to this.
TIERED PRICING FOR LANDLINES just like the new Cricket data bundles.
Charge heavy bandwidth users more money and the system will regulate itself, especially in a 4G environment where urban consumers can choose DSL, cable or cellular wireless as a primary home internet solution.
Why all the freaking "deals" and "proposals" folks?
Charge heavy bandwidth users more money and the system will regulate itself, especially in a 4G environment where urban consumers can choose DSL, cable or cellular wireless as a primary home internet solution.
Why all the freaking "deals" and "proposals" folks?
It means they want no bias towards data based on the type of data it is for wireline. They want consumers to be able to see/understand if they want to, how that data gets from the tubes, to their PC.
Also saying they don't want to prioritize Googl...
(continues)
Also saying they don't want to prioritize Googl...
(continues)
