I am afraid Google is now becoming draconian, as is customary with power, power corrupts, unless the union of Yahoo and MSN we don’t have much choice
Well and I’m supportive of something that helps 3rd world people get drugs and vaccines the rest of us take for granted (or refuse).
My tinfoil hat is smoldering!
Sorry guys but I’ve just been reading up about it, and I’ve also actually reviewed the 2 page document that Google themselves produced on the matter and based on what I’ve read I honestly think that if you believe Google are trying to make a premium version of the Internet, you’re drinking (and OD’d) the kool-aid 
Not only is the agreement between Google and Verizon a loose one (as in it’s not very tightly defined), the only way you can proclaim that a tiered internet will result from the agreement is on the basis of what was NOT stated (not what was), there is absolutely nothing actually within the agreement document or within any of Google’s follow up statements to even indicate that they want to make a premium version of the web or compromise the net neutrality “ideal”… all Google have done is outlined a few important points that they believe are essential to the future of the Internet (think of them as basic digital human rights) with the hopeful intention that they can be evolved and taken forward to congress and the public in order to push past all the political BS and red tape that’s been trying to suffocate net neutrality from the offset. Every single article I’ve read that has been moaning about Google’s lack of better defining net neutrality (which is hard to assume on a 2 page document) has been biased in the sense that their arguments proclaiming Google have turned evil are simply based on the idea that they believe there’s some grand conspiracy in which Google are using a 2 page overview draft document and the lack of clear definition within it to undermine something that isn’t even mentioned to a great extent. As always the press (and many of the haters) are simply drawing erroneous and misleading conclusions where they clearly don’t have any factual relevance and the “OH NOES WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE TERMINATOR STYLE” crowd are firing up the flares because a large business like Google (or MS or Apple as the case may be) are putting forward their opinion. There is absolutely no evidence that I’ve seen to suggest that Google are indeed “in bed” with anyone, and more to the point, I’ve yet to see ANY convincing evidence to suggest that this two page draft in anyway represents some sort of Dr Evil scheme.
The current network would continue to exist, which is good. But it looks like under the deal that you could develop a site with new generation technologies or upgrades all stuff, so that when your visitors browses you get all latest facilities, Google is the best ever tool to search any information regarding any thing it would be there.
<snip />[URL=“http://www.ghostpapers.com/”]
I think we might be a little too hard on Jerrac, I wish he were around to clarify. However, the tenor of his remarks certainly lend themselves to this interpretation. I think we have a very broad international coalition and politics can vary from one place to another. However, I’m in the US and there are large segments actively campaigning on the idea that government regulations of any kind are bad, and they have specifically singled out many government evils for attack like…
- making sure that people have health insurance instead of dying
- spending any money to stimulate the economy since business will take care of everyone
So, I don’t believe it’s fair to say that Alex or anyone is accusing anyone of being Hitler based on these comments. There are millions of people in the US alone who proudly declare these positions everyday. If you are upset that you look evil when someone says such things about you… well… then stop actively campaigning that you’re going to do exactly those things when you get elected. This is not a particularly complicated solution.
If it’s a topic that you want to bring up and talk about, then fine. Let’s talk about it. Just don’t bring it up and then get mad because you realize what it sounds like when someone else quotes it back to you. And there’s certainly no reason to get mad at us.
ditch google analytics with http://piwik.org/ open source
It was in some minor newspapers within the UK several days back but basically never made the headline news here for whatever reason. So it is not surprising Alex didn’t hear of it before.
Though it does sound rather worrying that certain content is going to get preferential treatment regarding delivery speed and resources.
I respect that Google has produced an overview memo, but the FCC is not reviewing an overview memo, they’re reviewing a major joint proposal from Google and Verizon. All right, let’s take a look at the whole thing then, since we seem to be bouncing around with what is and is not included. The proposal the FCC is reviewing will…
- Limit FCC jurisdiction (that’s good, let’s limit the FCC power to the areas and actions where they’re appropriate)
- Create a standards body (OK, we’ve already got the W3C, but maybe Google knows more than I do. Maybe we need to create another new internet bureaucracy. That sucks, but if we have to [and Google says we do] then I guess we have to.)
On that level, it’s not an unreasonable proposal. I think if this is what’s necessary to get net neutrality done and codified appropriately, then the majority of us can swallow that horse pill.
However…
Problem 1: The proposal which the FCC is considering also requests exceptions for “reasonable network management” and “lawful” content. As you’ve pointed out these are terribly easy ways for carriers to screw around with net neutrality. When other groups have proposed similar exceptions, Google itself has been among the leaders saying that doesn’t fly. So WHAT are they doing in Google’s own proposal.
Problem 2: Why does Wireless technology get a virtual pass on Net Neutrality, according the proposal wireless would only be required to satisfy the transparency requirements of net neutrality. That is certainly NOT net neutral.
Problem 3: More importantly, “additional online services” are excluded. The EFF analysis of Google’s proposal notes that most new innovation will occur in these areas.
“much of the innovation we expect to occur in the future will involve services “distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband Internet access service, but could make use of or access Internet content, applications or services.” If discrimination is allowed for all such things, then there could easily be little left on the “neutral” part of the Internet in a few years."
These are major issues, most of which Google itself has opposed. That’s one of the key reasons this smells bad. I think it’s entirely fair to judge Google by the same criteria they’ve championed for so many years. I just ask Google to live up to the same standards they’ve required everyone else to live up to. 
Because Verizon is one of the carriers sending you bits, and if IBM or Amazon pays $2 million dollars (or billion or whatever) for a special connection, then their websites are downloaded to you at a preferential speed. There are also exceptions to net neutrality which would allow carriers like Verizon to stop carrying your website entirely on the grounds that your content is not “lawful” (Alex has noted a couple cases where this has been egregiously abused) or that if violates someones copyright (an argument big companies have used directly with ISPs when they felt they didn’t have a strong enough case to go to court). Not to mention the caching used to speed mobile downloads which I’m sure some people are just dying to sell priority for (instead of having to treat everyone equal like they do now).
I agree with you that Google sometimes neglect the importance of small business and buries it. But to be clear, there is not alternative to Google services anyway. My website is starting to gain popularity very slowly as it is not yet sorted by Google. It is sorted in the 3rd place in yahoo, Bing and Alta vista. So we should try to manage our business making it a bit suitable to Google. good luck!
I remember once, I told my kids that if they cleaned their room, they each got a dollar. When they were “done”, and I inspected their rooms, I found all they’d done was shove things under their bed and fussed about it when I refused to pay. Their reason for still wanting to be paid?
“You didn’t tell us how to clean it!”
The point is this: the proposal, as it sits now, can be interpreted various ways, and more often than not, that interpretation will be representative of the interpreters expectations.
This proposal, as it sits, has the potential, to go one way or the other. The only thing people are doing by criticising it, is forcing it become more well defined so that we can better determine exactly what it means.
Right now, Google and Verizon want to “clean rooms”, but the details are a bit vague. Once the details get ironed out, then, and only then, will I really be able to tell how “good” the plan is.
my bad,
i didn’t understand “But I couldn’t tell if it also used server stats? To catch all those without JS.” @Stomme poes
yeah, only a few can go against google.
For it’s own safety Google better not make that deal… as tight as it’s security and such would be. There will always be some rough black-hatted hacker with the ability to hack into Google and mess things up for them big time in retaliation if the deal goes through.
What a Chaotic Situation, Is nothing safe from the big Corp.'s and their overfilled wallets, If they have the money to buy out google’s internet searching capabilities then they should give their employee’s a raise and leave the one thing on the internet that is sacred and holy ALONE!
getting pretty close to the ‘No politics’ rule here folks.
Please be careful as I dont want to close this thread.
To feel Google is a bad guy when what they’re hoping to do is fight the free market on it’s own terms (by granting rights for the web and conditions for ISPs that attempt this), is just close minded. Granted there is possibly a better way, by helping show how this would be a threat to the economy and potential threat to society’s thousands of jobs (if not millions)… But Google is just doing what they’re able to now, before it’s too late.
Their services and products are still top-notch regardless, so you should probably stop looking at the situation as immoral given the intent of the company and use tools that better your project/company; as that should be your actual priority.
Google is realizing the ultimate complication in a free market. So they’re going for a way to create “digital human rights” essentially by making a marketing agreement between ISPs. This allows special, highlighted sites or services to have premium type of speed while standard speed stays with everyone else. While that can seem harsh and bad, and while I don’t side with Google’s “giving up for a compromise instead”, I wouldn’t see them as evil, just running out of options at this time and made an easy compromise instead.
Really, if this does happen, it depends on the terms. That is, as long as 3-8mbps is the standard speed, then the web is still fast for the open public and it’ll depend on the developer’s end to work with the speed they have.
I dislike people defending the notion of premium content, stating things like TV. I don’t even support them doing that! They should just raise the price on their services to compensate for profit margins.
In the long run, I’m sure if they do such a thing as kill net neutrality, publicity and protesting from their customers as well as a national uproar will most likely occur, thus they either continue this exclusive bulls**t and lose more money than they hoped to gain (creating a loss purely) or they keep their guns on internet speeds they offer as plans and thus continue net neutrality.
It’s always pissed me off with how they do the exclusive stuff. Really, it’s the networks and shows that attack people to TV, not the provider (they only attract the lowest price with the most shows available). Without the golden content that the providers pay nothing for (only bandwidth bills of their customers), then their service will not last.
I just hope someone makes some speech or so to show how much net neutrality has given us, as every site online gained their popularity from it, as well as technology innovation (most of these sites run off of open source technologies after all). That because of this, the web became a profitable medium and technical revolution that inspires even the latest technology developments. Many jobs and huge potential has been granted because of this, and ending net neutrality is a threat to society, not just some profit gain of the provider. But most of the people are old in Washington and such, and do not understand this about the internet, other than email and Facebook.
You are right Stomme but when you rank well in Google it means you rank well in other search engines and get many visitors, while ranking in other search engines like Yahoo without ranking in Google is of a little importance. This happened to me. In addition, Google determines how many people are using your keyword monthly which I think is not allowed in other search engines.
jalbertbowdenii, nice link. But I couldn’t tell if it also used server stats? To catch all those without JS.
I think there is no Google Alternatives, google all products is awesome, like gmail, google apps, google browser, google search engine
Stomme poes
- i’m not sure exactly what you mean by that exactly, sorry not trying to join the arguments going on here, just lost in translation.
piwik comes with PHP/MySQL backend and you install it on your server. i’m assuming it does? but seeing as how assumptions go, if not, i’ll say confidently that you can add your own.
hope that helps?
just for fun - with the node.js explosion currently happening, i’m consciously pulling away from server-side languages…not that i won’t use them, but i’m just not focusing on them anymore. sooner or later (i think very much sooner) server-side javascript will be a viable option for all and i can’t wait!