wtf: Google is being evil

Verizon and Google Deny Talks to End Net Neutrality

http://mashable.com/2010/08/05/google-verizon-net-neutrality-2/

The problem with the FCC is that it reclassified ISPs in such a way that it literally gave up most of its regulatory authority. Granted, all it really has to do is find a reason to revert that reclassification and it can step in properly, but until that happens we've got no one on our side. Fitting that this is Verizon we're dealing with, a company that has lied to the FCC in response to consumer complaints, leaving the consumer to have to enter into a not-exactly-inexpensive "formal complaint procedure" at their own expense.

Fact-checking? Reliability? A journalist needs not these things, Ryan - only a soapbox from which to shout and something to shout about!

It's starting to sound like somebody blew this way out of proportion this morning. Hopefully we'll get the full explanation soon.

Google this morning denied the existence of such a deal.

"The New York Times is quite simply wrong," a Google spokeswoman said in an e-mail. "We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google traffic. We remain as committed as we always have been to an open Internet."

Verizon also denied it.

"The New York Times article regarding conversations between Google and Verizon is mistaken. It fundamentally misunderstands our purpose," Verizon said in a statement. "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."

source: Google Denies Priority Internet Access Deal With Verizon, PCMAG.COM

Are you ok, MaryAnn?

You seem real stressed out lately.

The problem with the NYT article is it's full of dire predictions that are based on zero facts:

...are nearing an agreement that could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content’s creators are willing to pay for the privilege.

The charges could be paid by companies, like YouTube, owned by Google...

The agreement could eventually lead to higher charges for Internet users.

Such an agreement could overthrow a once-sacred tenet of Internet policy known as net neutrality...

In its place, consumers could soon see a new, tiered system...

That's all this article is, pure speculation. Hit-whoring at its worst. It's unfortunate, but not surprising, to see the NYT isn't above using scare-tactics to get extra traffic.

Sorry you're stressed, MaryAnn, but this appears to be one thing you don't have to worry about. At least not today.

Um, if you really think that once the door is opened to ISP's charging tiered pricing based upon content, that the end result will be the utter fragmentation of the internet into bandwidth "have's" and "have not's" is SPECULATION, then I want some of what you're smoking.

Of course it's speculation. It's also speculation that applying heat in excess of 451 degrees F to paper will cause fire; after all, it MIGHT just smoke and ember, or it might be wet, or the anti-fire fairy might keep it from burning. So sure, it's technically speculation because you're not SURE paper will burn at this temperature.

But given recent history, given how we've seen that "all roads lead to consumers being screwed," given that Google has made it clear that "don't be evil" is pretty much just a marketing buzzphrase, I think it's pretty bloody accurate speculation.