This is the problem with REALLY BIG CORPORATIONS running things.
They're too big to be nimble when things change fast in a technology.
They were naive about how the economy would effect tech and how the
public would respond. I think too many execs are overly optimistic and
not realistic about the future. They apparently think the public won't
care but they may be thinking twice with the outrage this issue has
caused. It may require for a complete breakdown in technology in the US
before we get what we need and want.
Disconnect wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Matt Kanninen <[email protected]>wrote:
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.
That is QOS, not net neutrality. How cool are you with your data provider
deciding that vonage is the only "supported" VOIP app and you need to pay
extra to use skype? (if they let you use it at all..) "Sorry, our data
network is not optimized for VOIP other than the provider that is paying us
for customers, so the random huge 500ms latency and 80% packet loss that
seems to -only- hit skype traffic is beyond our control.."
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.
Unfortunately, between long-term lockin contracts and people who choose
provider based on the phones they offer, that is not really true. My
neighbors have more choice of broadband ISP than wireless carrier - one must
have sprint (nextel for the fire service), others only want iphone, etc.
(Whereas we have fios, comcast, 1-2 "mobile broadband" and at least one
satellite offering that are reasonably priced.)
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]<android-discuss%[email protected]>
.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en.
--
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.
