On Friday 13 August 2010 13:30:14 Brian Conrad wrote: > 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.
Is this the same outrage that is shutting Facebook down over its abuse of privacy issues? > 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%2Bunsubscri > >> [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.
