backtop


Print 42 comment(s) - last by dark matter.. on Aug 7 at 9:31 AM


Net neutrality has been a contentious debate, but Google and Verizon appear to have reached a compromise on the issue.  (Source: Neoseeker)

Net neutrality has many supporters in the public.  (Source: Current News)
Basic premise is that net neutrality applies to wired web, but not wireless

Google, the world's largest internet business, and Verizon, the largest wireless network provider in the U.S., have long waged war over net neutrality.  As Google explored wireless options it resisted Verizon's notion of throttled traffic.  Likewise, as Verizon expanded its wireless traffic it looked to pursue throttling and other strategies to prevent "overuse".

Now the pair has worked out their differences and formed a private pact that may shape the way internet access is provided across America.

Verizon spokesman David Fish states, "We’ve been working with Google for 10 months to reach an agreement on broadband policy.  We are currently engaged in and committed to the negotiation process led by the FCC."

According to 
The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, Google has essentially turned its back on net neutrality in the mobile sphere and is now working with Verizon to roll out a tiered scheme that would see internet content providers like YouTube get faster service for paying more, and smaller sites regulated to the slow lane.

Mistique Cano, a Washington-based Google spokeswoman, would not confirm or deny an agreement had been reached.

Under the agreement, according to sources cited by 
Bloomberg, Verizon would agree not to selectively slow traffic -- such as video streams -- through its wired connections.  However, it would remain free to apply selective slowing (throttling) as necessary on its wireless connections, to preserve service.

The agreement comes as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) looks to iron out net neutrality legislation to go before Congress.  The FCC is working with Google, Verizon, AT&T, and others to come to a proposal that's comprehensive enough, but that everyone can live with.

Any FCC agreement would likely require AT&T, who made it clear that it was 
not on board with Verizon and Google's pact.  Jim Cicconi, AT&T senior executive vice president, wrote, "AT&T is not a party to the purported agreement between Google and Verizon.  We remain committed to trying to reach a consensus on this issue through the FCC process."

Google and Verizon may have been at-time enemies on the issue of net neutrality, but in the grand scheme of things they enjoy a close relationship.  Verizon is among the largest carriers of handsets employing Google's wildly successful operating system Android, which recently passed the iPhone's version of OS X to become the most used smart phone operating system in the U.S.

Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior vice president of the Washington-based Media Access Project, a watchdog legal firm, remained skeptical of the deal, commenting, "What is good for Google and Verizon is not necessarily good for innovation and competition on the Internet."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Picture
By NARC4457 on 8/5/2010 2:30:03 PM , Rating: 5
Well maybe you should have been doing your job, rather than surfing the internet.

Just a thought, if you are worried about that sort of thing.


RE: Picture
By Donkey2008 on 8/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: Picture
By bplewis24 on 8/5/2010 4:40:23 PM , Rating: 4
Maybe you shouldn't assume so much? You would be hard-pressed to find a job that requires you to work non-stop for 8 hours per day.

I take my first 15 minute break at nearly 10:30am each day and eat my snack and surf the web or check emails, and that is exactly what I was doing when reading this article. C

Even IF my employer did not allow me to surf the web during breaks (which they do allow) considering that I was on a technology site, I wasn't worried about getting in trouble for staring at pornographic content. If I was going to get in trouble at work, I would much rather get in trouble for surfing the net as opposed to looking at pictures of nearly naked women. There is a huge difference.

Brandon


RE: Picture
By bodar on 8/5/2010 8:52:44 PM , Rating: 4
I swear Mick must've woke up today and said "Y'know, I don't get NEARLY enough crap for my articles. Hey, I'll piss off people reading this site from work for absolutely no reason. Huh-huh, boobs."

GG, DailyTech.


RE: Picture
By TheEinstein on 8/6/2010 3:39:09 AM , Rating: 5
Dear Gosh,

I do security work, and while I am allowed to browse, they think they have shut off anything that would be NSFW for engineers or such to find. I am on grave yard, but man, this would have been a disaster on day!

If you reach a point where you must use sex to get views, then your no longer a writer but a pr0n provider. Please stop!


RE: Picture
By FaceMaster on 8/5/10, Rating: -1
RE: Picture
By MrWho on 8/6/2010 9:46:13 AM , Rating: 1
I really don't understand all that negative rating. I find it quite amusing!


RE: Picture
By ebaycj on 8/6/2010 3:03:07 PM , Rating: 2
You must be unemployed. Or reading at home.


RE: Picture
By dark matter on 8/7/2010 9:31:32 AM , Rating: 3
Dude, it isn't what WE think about the picture. It's what someone passing by thinks about the picture on your screen. If they go and raise a grievence that they have been offended by what's on your screen you have a lot of answering to do. Even if found innocent, the stigma will remain and the management will be watching you like a hawk. Not something you want because some douche of a writer thinks its funny.


"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki