Alan Grayson: Verizon-Google: There’s a Hard Rain Coming-An effort to kill off the open Internet

[kpete]

Verizon-Google: There’s a Hard Rain Coming
by Alan Grayson
Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 01:57:42 PM PDT

"Barry Diller asserted that the Google-Verizon proposal “doesn’t preserve ‘net neutrality,’ full stop, or anything like it.” Asked if other media executives were staying quiet because they stand to gain from a less open Internet, he said simply, “Yes.”" New York Times, August 12, 2010

The Verizon-Google Net Neutrality Proposal begins by stating that “Google and Verizon have been working together to find ways to preserve the open Internet.” Well, that’s nice. Imagine what they would have come up with if they had been trying to kill off the open Internet.

Actually, you don’t have to imagine it. Because that’s what this is. An effort to kill off the open Internet.

Much of the coverage of the Verizon-Google Proposal has focused on only one of the proposal's many problems: the fact that the proposal allows wireless broadband carriers – like, say, Verizon, for instance – to discriminate in handling Internet traffic in any manner they choose. They can charge content providers, they can block content providers, and they can slow down content providers, just as they please. That sure doesn’t sound “neutral.”

more:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/8/19/894637/-Verizon-Google:-Theres-a-Hard-Rain-Coming

[HillbillyBob]

1. The bitch I have is that we can only get high cost

verizon coverage and have gmail. I guess its time to do without phones at all and find somewhere else to get my email account.

[Bitwit1234]

2. You know why they want to control the internet?

Because that's where we get the news and the truth. Since the media is republican corporate controlled and they tell us what they want us to believe, they are bashing their brains out trying to figure out how to control what we see and read on the net. They have control over everything in this country but that and they are working their asses off to take it under republican corporate control. The learned their mistake with Obama's internet campaign.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AndyA]

4. FAIL.

You do not want private companies to "control the internet." Period.

Private companies have agendas. A website expresses an opinion the company doesn't like, or runs negative ads against a candidate that company supports, VIOLA! that site goes down to that company's customers, or responds so slowly that no one hangs around to read it.

Imagine DU and some of the viewpoints posted here. There are some pretty embarrassing facts posted within the confines of this forum, facts that others would just as soon not have available to the public, so the corporate ISPs just put DU on the slow side. Or, it just doesn't appear at all. Of course, DU could pay the ISPs blackmail money a fee to speed things up. And those fees would be set by...the ISPs. So, sites that they don't like get charged a higher tier.

No, we want the FCC to regulate the Internet to keep it equal access for all.

Haven't we seen the damage corporate America does when left to police itself?

[BadgerKid]

6. Part 2.

And we don't want private companies controlling the government, or in this case, FCC, either.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Confusious]

21. How does a telco get onto the FCC,

When only individuals can be appointed to the board?

[MerryBlooms]

7. FCC = equal access for all, or

access = bank account ... yeah ... I'll take my chances with the FCC.
Was the moniker, libertarianhillbilly, taken?
Geesh ... think man - THINK!

[laughingliberal]

12. +1000 nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

8. You're on a roll.

:eyes:

[Subdivisions]

11. Are you a corporatist? n/t

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Subdivisions]

17. You didn't answer my question: ARE YOU A CORPORATIST? n/t

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bobbolink]

16. Ah, a fan of "privatization" (Corporate control) Thank you for declaring yourself so early.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Confusious]

20. Bullshit argument

No one is controlling the internet. Net neutrality simply says a carrier cannot discriminate against anyone.

You get the same speed when you go to google, DU, or hot chicks.com.

At least with the government, I have some voice, however small. With a corporation I have NONE.

[Confusious]

22. Bullshit argument, as explained above.

You've been slurping the koolaid, haven't you.

[FiveGoodMen]

5. I've lost count of how many net neutrality petitions I've signed

They all say, "This may be your last chance to save the internet!"

Then they say it again.

Then again.

Then again.

Is anyone listening?

Or are we just jerking off?

[Subdivisions]

10. It's a jerk-off. Does anyone have any evidence that this sort of petition

has ever had the slightest effect on the issue involved?

[Subdivisions]

9. On second thought, deleted. Surely someone would have found a way to twist my words. n/t

[butterfly77]

15. K&R!