I'm very surprised how fast most of you sprung to hating google without even researching the topic.

I am not, it happens all the time here.

Did you notice that five people posted "Google are evil" messages after I refuted the story.

People hate what they are scared of, and people here are scared of Google and are looking for excuses to justify their hatred: the facts clearly do not matter.

@freejung, I am not saying its right (of course its not!), I am saying that it is the way things are.

The only thing you can do about it is what AndyA did, and make your voice heard.

Come to think of it, it may actually be a good idea to raise the entry bar and destroy the business concepts of MFA sites along the way ;-)

Ha! The MFA/money sites will be the first ones willing and able to pay money for special access. It's the startups who are used to doing business "the old way" that will get knocked out by this.

Google and Verizon assume one thing - they are the only search engine and internet provider on the planet. Not wise.

I'd be surprised to see Google or Verizon throttle any sites else they'd get throttled by consumers themselves.

I'm simply not going to have my content be held hostage unless I pay by either of these companies. If they push I'll shove a googlebot noindex tag just as quickly. This "deal" seems aimed at generating profit, not improving the net... not good.

edit: I love how the article starts out by saying Google and Verizon are two of the biggest content providers... last I checked they push OUR content and have next to none of their own.

and then there's this...

Consumer groups have objected to the private meetings, saying that too many stakeholders are being left out of discussions over the future of the Internet.

We'll soon see if Wall st pulls harder than consumer groups. More money for themselves at user expense vs a better internet.

Internet traffic talks collapse [reuters.com]

Regulators halted closed-door negotiations about net neutrality rules with phone, cable and Internet companies on Thursday after reports of a side deal between two participants, Verizon Communications Inc and Google Inc, surfaced.

"We have called off this round of stakeholder discussions," said Edward Lazarus, chief of staff for Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski.

Google is truly negotiating to kill the internet. [insidegoogle.com...]

I quit using Google and I'm now supporting Yahoo and Bing.

So much for the false alarm theory.

Today from PcWorld:

Schmidt Sings A Different Tune
While Google's assertion that it is committed to an open Internet may sound reassuring, recent statements by company CEO Eric Schmidt suggest otherwise. In fact, Schmidt appears to confirm the worst fears of open Internet advocates by redefining what net neutrality means.

London's Telegraph reportes Schmidt confirmed that Google had been trying for some time to come to an agreement with Verizon over the definition of net neutrality. Then Google's CEO said, "people get confused [about net neutrality]. What we mean is that if you have one data type, like video, you don't discriminate against one person's video in favor of another. It's OK to discriminate across different types [of data]," according to the Telegraph.
[pcworld.com...]

^ I didn't think that story was false for one second, goog can say anything it wants on its blog it doesn't mean the news was correct and goog was just trying to clean up and save some face.

Man... TelCom has been trying to find ways to get more from both ends of the internet since broadband took over dial up access.

Its called greed... and starts in the Beltway of Wash DC. They are ALWAYS going to find a way to squeeze a penny out of something everyone uses!

The squeezed penny idea is BAD until the people squeezing it (Telcom) realize they can get the OK to squeeze 5 pennies and keep 3-4 for themselves!

Again... Gov't greed, fostered by corporate greed... I mean, US Govt.

@ppc_newbie, that is not a redefinition of network neutrality: it is a reasonable one, and certainly not a new definition. It is sufficient to ensure a level playing field in the market - so that small websites do not get locked out, or consumers are steered towards certain services.

It is also how Google have always defined network neutrality. From three years ago:

We also stated that it may be a reasonable business practice to prioritize all packets of a certain application type. Our rationale for that position is that there may well be tangible end user benefits from giving preferential treatment to certain Internet packets, such as those in a streaming video transmission, in order to enhance the end user experience.

[googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com ]

Discriminating between types of traffic is traffic shaping. It is a good idea: email does not need the same QoS as VOIP, a video download does not require the same bandwidth that streaming video does.

The linked articles suggest that traffic shaping is something new. The technology has existed for a long time - telcos have been giving VOIP priority, at least in the case of carrying PSTN voice internally on an IP network, on their networks for at least a decade. It would be very surprising if the technology was not applied elsewhere at all at the time.

I think a lot of people, in the press and here, are being fooled by a telco organised PR campaign to undermine the campaign for network neutrality by pretending that Google has turned against it.

@graeme_p
I wasn't really pushing it one way or another. Just referencing a newer article with a different take on it.

But then Google is muddying the waters by trying to use the same term for both traffic shaping, and net neutrality.

Just think of how all the file sharing sites attempt to define themselves as "hosts" regarding DCMA.

^^^^^^^^^^^

Google is using different terms for net neutrality and traffic shaping.

Not sure that you mean by the last para.

One good piece of news is that Neelie Kroes is pro-net neutrality: [bbc.co.uk ]

Fantastic! And about time.

Hopefully this will help sort the wheat from the chaff for QoS.

Talks were halted by The FCC
"The Federal Communications Commission on Aug. 5 ceased broadband policy discussions with Google, Verizon, Skype and AT&T. "

I'm very surprised how fast most of you sprung to hating google without even researching the topic.

Um, people are right to be skeptical about Google's motives. As soon as Google became a publicly traded company their #1 goal is and will always be making money. Any and all decisions are influenced by that and any public perception about caring about the little guys is only there if it benefits Google.

Faster speeds WILL benefit Google and they can pass the blame to the internet carriers, making this a no-brainer from Google's point of view. Google wouldn't be the only company doing it as well, all the major companies would have to jump on board to compete. Sucks for the little guy.

do no evil left the building a lonnnnnng time ago. Now they just try to keep a happy face to the public while they build the evil behind closed doors.

How neutrality locks in the web's 'Hyper Giants'

What Google-Verizon means for you

By the mid 1990s it had become pointless to compete with Microsoft in operating systems and office software - and investment in potential competitors dried up. The best you could hope for as a software company was to carve out a niche as part of the Windows Office system; this was a very small niche indeed.

The same thing is happening today with web services. But what Google and other web giants are doing goes largely unnoticed, even by analysts, pundits and Presidential advisors. What they are able to do is use their scale, and clever and cynical politics to obscure how they're solidifying their competitive advantage. In particular, they're swearing allegiance to (and lobbying for) an idea which doesn't apply to their operations, but which will keep smaller competitors out of the market. A Zoho, for example - or the next new YouTube.

[theregister.co.uk...]

Further analysis on this subject...

"Just wait till SEO results are nothing but predetermined purchased slots."

Just like Baidu. Great.

Let's just say for a moment this did happen. What kind of costs would be incurred for a smallish site to play in the fast lane?

Any clues?

do no evil left the building a lonnnnnng time ago.

"Do No Evil" was one of the most brilliant PR campaigns in the history of commerce -- right up there with "New and Improved Tide" and "Things Go Better With Coke". As StoutFiles said, once a company has an IPO with millions of stockholders, their allegiance must shift to one thing and one thing only: be as profitable as possible. Otherwise, they open themselves up to mismanagement lawsuits. So anyone holding onto "Do No Evil" as relevant for today's Google might want to pour themselves a Classic Coke, to see if in fact things go better...

.......................