While I generally agree with you, I would like to point out that there
are toll booths on some of the national interstate highways in some
parts of the country. Take for example I-80 outside of Chicago, IL, and
also through much of Ohio, or I-44/40 in Oklahoma... The interstates
were long ago paid for by our taxes, and their upkeep is paid by more
tax money, and yet states are allowed to profit from them apparently,
though most don't have toll roads.
That said, I whole heartedly agree that internet management needs to be
something outside the control of governments and businesses, but I can't
come up with a reasonable idea for a governing body that would be able
to enforce rules and provide equal access for all at a reasonable cost
as well...
Raymond
On 8/10/2010 2:30 PM, Brian Conrad wrote:
Though I applaud Google's developing Android as an open source
platform I DO NOT applaud their activities regarding the end to Net
Neutrality. I'm getting tired of this growing trend of what
essentially is "corporate communism" or where the corporations run
everything including the government. Let's leave the Internet as it
is. Or if the telecoms are crying because their expansion need to be
paid for (after their exec's new yachts, private jets and mansions, of
course) and start behaving arrogantly then it is time to take the
Internet out of their hands and put it in the commons. It is the
"information highway" and should be treated like our interstate
highways with free and open access to everyone.
Web site devoted to blocking this kind of activity:
http://www.savetheinternet.com/
Also make your local small business people aware of this. They often
just contract someone to do a web page and don't pay attention to this
stuff. Let them know their customers will have difficulty getting to
their web pages if net neutrality ends. Time to set fires under the
usual apathetic asses of Americans.
Shane Isbell wrote:
Some info on Google and Verizon on net neutrality in the link below.
The article is a bit muddled. What Verizon is really trying to do is
QoS and
charging more for better service, something very similar to how they
are now
charging for tethering (although in a new way which I explain below).
T-Mobile never built out their QoS so we can expect them to remain
neutral;
but with Verizon and Google both coming out in support of this, I'd
expect
two things to happen on VZW.
First, Android services are going to become tiered so to get the
full-experience is going to start costing end-users more.
Second, companies like Google are going to be able to strike deals so
that
services like YouTube will be unrestricted, while services of
competitors
(or other third-parties) who don't pay Verizon will be throttled.
I understand the reasons carriers give for this, they pay a lot for the
network so the people that use it the most should pay more. This is
standard
business practice. But this new argument emerging that certain
websites or
services should be restricted is rather smelly and reflects back the old
Verizon (the true Verizon?) prior to Android. It's basically saying that
companies that pay more will have better service and this allows whole
competitive landscapes to shift in ways that QoS on the end-user
couldn't.
To make this more specific, say you have a really popular Android
application and then Verizon has a most-favored vendor that decides
to come
up with a competitor to your application. Well, when your service
becomes
twice as slow (or even unusable), which service do you think users
will move
to? This is a very dangerous slope for Android.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-09/google-verizon-offer-joint-internet-policy-proposal-without-mobile-limits.html
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android
Discuss" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en.
