Slashdot Mirror
Google and Verizon In Talks To Prioritize Traffic (Updated)
Nrbelex writes "Google and Verizon 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. Any agreement between Verizon and Google could also upend the efforts of the Federal Communications Commission to assert its authority over broadband service, which was severely restricted by a federal appeals court decision in April. People close to the negotiations who were not authorized to speak publicly about them said an agreement could be reached as soon as next week. If completed, Google, whose Android operating system powers many Verizon wireless phones, would agree not to challenge Verizon's ability to manage its broadband Internet network as it pleased."
Update: 08/05 20:03 GMT by T :
nr3a1 writes with this informative update excerpted from Engadget: "Google's Public Policy Twitter account just belted out a denial of these claims, straight-up saying that the New York Times 'is wrong.' Here's the full tweet, which certainly makes us feel a bit more at ease. For now. '@NYTimes is wrong. We've not had any convos with VZN about paying for carriage of our traffic. We remain committed to an open internet.' Verizon's now also issued a statement and, like Google, it's denying the claims in the original New York Times report."
What ever happened to Do No Evil
You aren't speeding some traffic up, you're slowing the rest down.
So long as there is a healthy amount of cash to go with it, Google will be a proponent of anything you like.
Google is for net neutrality when the lack of net neutrality could cost Google money.
Google is against net neutrality when the lack of net neutrality could gain Google money.
In related news, Google is a publicly-traded for-profit corporation with an eye on the bottom line. Get used to it.
Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
If you really feel that way, then vote with your business and use Yahoo Search. if enough people dumped them over this they might have second thoughts, and at the very least you would be standing up for your principles and supporting an underdog. Yahoo Search is really good now, especially the "More" tab (that is the little tab below the search box after you've run a query) which not only gives you common words added to your search like Google, but related concepts, such as searching for "Dark Knight" will give you Chris Nolan, Heath Ledger, etc.
As for TFA, can we all agree that "Do No Evil" bullshit is officially shot to hell? It was good PR spin while it lasted, but short of hanging puppies from the Google offices I can't see how they can get more evil as an Internet company than to screw the web by turning against Net Neutrality, especially considering now that Google has done it every other big player will be cutting backroom deals to jump on the bandwagon.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
In related news, Google is a publicly-traded for-profit corporation with an eye on the bottom line. Get used to it.
When I see cynical remarks like those, it forces me to re-evaluate my opinion on the "corporations are persons" type of talk. It's better to see them as persons, and ask of them to act morally, than completely let them off the hook, because it's a corporation.
If I buy a Verizon phone, everything except Google (and a few other wealthy content providers) is slower. If I buy an AT&T phone, its all a delivered at 'best effort' speeds. I wonder which phone I should buy?
Google is shooting themselves in the foot here. Their success as a search engine hinges on my ability to find some other web site using their service. If they buy their way to the top of the heap, so to speak, they are screwing over the content providers upon which they rely. Sure, the search loads faster. But my overall time spent staring at the screen is the same, since they slowed down the site I was interested in.
If this is due to coercion on Verizon's part, I'd be in favor of granting Google execs immunity for their testimony before Congress or to the Justice epartment.
Have gnu, will travel.
"We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google traffic.
"Instead we're getting free priority traffic in exchange for unlimited free adwords & we'll lower page rankings on
articles critical of VZN. See.. nobody is paying (except the consumer)."
Ah yes, more responsible journalism from the NYT. Why anyone reads that rag anymore is beyond me.
If there is anything we humans enjoy more than watching an underdog rise to the top, it's watching that same underdog fall from grace once it's gotten there.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google traffic.
Perhaps the NYT got only part of it wrong?
Doesn't anyone else find it odd they didn't simply say, "We have not had any conversations with Verizon about carriage of Google traffic"? Either their PR person is new or there is something under the covers here and they are simply semantically side-stepping.
Hyper-reporting and politics did billions of dollars in damage to the tourism industries all through the Gulf states. The oil did very little damage. The administration needs to be apologizing to the thousands they put out of work for their illegal moratorium on drilling. But that is off-topic.