Printed from http://www.electronista.com

Google, Verizon neutrality pact to exclude wireless?

updated 07:40 pm EDT, Wed August 4, 2010

Google, Verizon in own talks on net neutrality

Google and Verizon have come into an agreement as to how network operators can manage Internet traffic, according to sources familiar with their negotiations. According to a Thursday Washington Post report, this has happened while the FCC tries to create a set of net neutrality rules that the Internet content providers and ISPs are supposed to follow. An official statement from Google and Verizon is expected to come over the course of the next week.

Meanwhile, the high-ranking representatives from the two companies continue to meet with the FCC and staff from AT&T, Verizon, Google, Skype, a cable trade association and the Open Internet Coalition. These meetings are loudly criticized by public interest groups that do not believe Internet companies should have a large influence on the government's decision on how consumers use the Internet.

The unnamed sources say Google and Verizon's own deal would keep the latter from letting the highest bidders buy priority capacity on its DSL and fiber networks. Open Internet access won't apply to cellphones, however, the sources added.

Verizon could offer better quality to some managed service websites such as health care services. Without a better explanation, many fear this definition could also be expanded to include YouTube and other such services to its FiOS customers, with better quality, for example.

The FCC's meeting with the six companies aims to forge rules that would prevent network operators from blocking or slowing down certain websites.

Part of the talks involves deciding whether wireless phones should be included in this and ultimately if carriers can charge for different, better quality levels of service to certain sites or for certain formats.



By Electronista Staff
toggle

Comments

  1. facebook_Thomas

    Via Facebook

    Joined: Aug 2010

    +1

    Interesting

    Since when did google and verizon own the internet and speak for all?

  1. nowwhatareyoulookingat

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jul 2009

    +2

    we won't slow anybody down!

    However, the packets from people that give us buckets of cash all move to the priority queue. Packets from the 'regular' queue get sent ASAP, but only if the priority queue is empty.

    'Net Neutrality', republican-style. You want to be neutral, you need to pay to make it into the priority queue!

  1. testudo

    Forum Regular

    Joined: Aug 2001

    -3

    Re: we won't slow anybody down!

    However, the packets from people that give us buckets of cash all move to the priority queue. Packets from the 'regular' queue get sent ASAP, but only if the priority queue is empty.

    The truth is some traffic should take priority over others. Streamed traffic is far more time sensitive than 'I'm trying to get to my favorite MS web site!" or just straight downloads from iTunes. VOIP should have priority over others, as that is the most real-time.

    I'm sure you'd be happy if your FaceTime chats with whoever people face time chat with was choppy and breakin' up, because of all the other people on your network download p*** at the same time, right? As long as you all are slow, great!

    But what it comes down to is the cheap-a** consumer who wants large corporations to shell out billions of dollars to push high-speed access to your home, insist that the price is dirt cheap, whine if they put any limits on it ("What do you mean I can only download 250GB a month?!?!? That's just ridiculous and unfair!") and then proclaim that said company should have absolutely no say what it can or can't do with it's own wires.

    Maybe if the gov't wants to control the internet services of these companies, they should pay them for installing it in the first place.

  1. facebook_Thomas

    Via Facebook

    Joined: Aug 2010

    +1

    Testudo your point is ambiguous?

    First you say we complain if our face time video is being slowed down because too many people are watching pxxx but then you said that streaming should take piority over peopling looking up their favorite MS site? Isn't pxxx also streamed? So how does your argument hold up?

    It does make sense to allow some protocols to have priority but that's when people start to abuse it. Thats what everyone is worried about. Some companies will figure away to send their data over the priority protocol and charge others to use their data stream if they want higher speed as well.

    This breaks down the entire theory behind allowing some protocols to have priority so it's really safer to level the playing field and nothing gets priority. Or I should say no one get priority.

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.

toggle

Network Headlines

toggle

Most Popular

Sponsor

Recent Reviews

ActvContent Sync Smartband

Smartbands of all sorts are hitting the market. Some build on the buzz around fitness trackers, while others offer simpler features fo ...

RocketStor 6324L Thunderbolt 2 eSATA bridge

Like it or not, the shift to Thunderbolt is underway. The connection is extremely flexible, allowing for video and data to co-habitate ...

Patriot Stellar Boost XT 64GB USB 3.0 drive

A vast selection of USB memory sticks means that consumers can often find exactly the size drive they need in a configuration that can ...

Sponsor

toggle

Most Commented

 
toggle

Popular News