Southern Califronia has a major toll highway, google maps used to drop you on it all the time if you drove from Los Angeles to San Diego.
Getting back on topic, I can't get myself fired up yet about net neutrality. I'm expecting the market will fix the problem, and there will be plenty of geek rage each time an ISP is detected as violating it. The wireless internet is still a more wild west type place, so I can see some companies getting away with giving one of theirs or a partners service some sort of priority. But I can think of lots of examples where I'd want that. If I switched to skype as my primary voice provider on my phone I'd want it's traffic prioritized. I'm cool with traffic that is considered "real time", gaming traffic, streaming video, voice, etc. to gret priorized over every random webpage's ajaxed advertising related network calls. Also the cell phone companies do have less monopolistic control then ISP's do in the US. You have your choice of the 1 Cable operator in the area in most places, if you want the fastest consumer internet speeds. But the market is much more fragmented for cell phones. My 2 cents, -MK On Aug 11, 1:52 pm, Brian Conrad <[email protected]> wrote: > FYI, some of the tollroads were around before the Interstate projects. > They are widely unknown in the west however. > > > > Raymond C. Rodgers wrote: > > 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-i... -- 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.
