Google and Verizon deny net-neutrality rumors

By on Aug 5, 2010 at 12:42 PM
Internet August 5, 2010

Yesterday, the New York Times reported that Google and Verizon were, “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 Federal Communications Commission has been trying, and failing, to prevent such deals from occurring, thanks largely in part to an April court ruling that stated the FCC “lacked the authority” to prevent service providers from slowing or blocking certain connections. According to the Times’ source, Google would, “agree not to challenge Verizon’s ability to manage its broadband Internet network as it pleased,” if the deal is approved. Today, both Google and Verizon have refuted the New York Times’ story, calling it “entirely incorrect,” and saying that their, “goal is an Internet policy framework that ensures openness and accountability, and incorporates specific FCC authority, while maintaining investment and innovation.” What is your stance on net-neutrality?

Read [New York Time] Read [MSNBC]

Tags:
, , , ,
61 Comments

Related Articles

  • landshark

    if they pass this net nuetrality, then thay should also outlaw priority mail from the postal service. Why should someone’s package be delivered faster than mine?? Oh right they paid more.

    • DrA

      Except content providers (youtube, etc.) don’t currently pay anything besides the cost of their own internet connection/servers/whatever, and that’s why there’s so much innovation on the internet. If ISPs start to say “Hey, if you want our customers to be able to access your website, you’re going to have to pay up!”, that’s going to kill innovation and fragment the internet.

      As much as something like tiered data plans would be a huge annoyance, it’d be better to have tiered data plans and net neutrality, than unlimited data plans and no net neutrality.

      • landshark

        This is one of the big problems with the whole discussion, what is the definition of net neutrality. I am thinking tiered data plan would not be allowed in net neutrality. I thought neutrality meant all traffic treated the same, if so how do you tier?
        I don’t think the carriers want to block services or charge for all access to a service, I would agree to bans on that, though it would be sticky to enforce. Never allow dropped packets is not realistic, but if you allow some, then how much, and how is it enforced?
        How can the providers demand a certain type of treatment from ISP’s they are not paying? I can agree to best effort as a right, but then you ride in standard class. Maybe what standard class is needs some definition. But let those that want an upgrade pay for that.

1 2
blog comments powered by Disqus