Google is about to cut a deal with Verizon that would end the Internet as we know it
 

So I get this today from MoveOn.org

Google doesn't control the root servers, switches, or individual servers so I don't see how this could be even remotely possible.

Interesting. Here is another article from PC World. Sounds like Verizon and Google need to speak up and do some explaining.

I don't like this one little bit.

BTW Art, your pic rocks :)

yea
Cleo, always doom sayers out there...wack jobs..
you are right, google doesn't control the backbone of the internet...
but it may slow down peoples searches for things it doesn't like or competitors from it's site..now i see that as the only (still far fetched) thing that may come of it..if any..

Someone trying to stir up shit for net neutrality so the government can control the net the way they want to. Watch dog groups will be all over that shit in a heartbeat.

The latest version has Google's boss is trying to redefine "net neutrality" as traffic shaping.

Considering all the BS that has been coming from MV lately, I don't trust anything he says. |catfight|

Or when people try to redefine terms to suit themselves. |huh
eg. File shares/tubes calling themselves "hosts".

Sadly, America is run by corporations. Citizens are relegated to the status of consumers. There is no doubt in my mind that some day net neutrality will be lost.

If you read the article that I quoted it was speculated that Google might be making a deal to get priority for some types of traffic (and not priority for itself). Who knows.

What could happen is that Google...in its constant quest to deliver the best and fastest websites to its searchers...will begin to display only the very fastest loading sites on the first few pages of search results. They're already using page loading speed as part of the AdWords Quality Score, and they did announce back in April that they're already using it for search rankings. So anyone who isn't paying the extra extortion rate for the higher-speed delivery of their content could just see their search rankings disappear from the first 30 pages of Google search results.

And currently a #1 position in the SERPs is getting pretty close to page #2 anyways by the time that Google fills the first spots up with all it own properties(AdWords, YouTube, images.news,etc.). |cry|

There is a growing movement on some general WM forums to actually block Google from their sites. Why let a company scrap content from your sites when you no longer get anything(traffic) in return. |catfight|

It never existed. You already pay a differential of access as a publisher.

People concerned about applying the business model to the last mile that exists for all but the last mile already is a bit hysterical, IMO. No different than paying for a bigger connection (10, 100, 1000 mbs) or peer redundancy currently, our hosting bills may creep up a few cents per GB of transfer in order to get fastest pipeline access - in the extreme case where it becomes pay for pipeline access in the last mile. Since "net neutrality" as it is defined by those sponsoring such concepts does not exist from your server to a block from the home you are reaching, this whole controversy amounts to much ado about a few hundred yards.

As a consumer, and heavy duty internet user, page load means alot to me. All Google is doing is responding to their customers' demands, like any good business should.

And, level of access (peer redundancy, connection bw) are only two variables in hundreds that impact page load speed. Coming from the old days of 28kbs connections, I can design good pages that load fast enough to not make a difference to Google that are served from a three peer, non-cloud, Apache server connected to a 10mbs line - and most of my sites continue to be served by a 10mbs line. Video sites, particularly ones that load videos and play upon page load, absolutely need 100 mbs lines or larger and more redundancies, which have become quite inexpensive to trade up to ($15 per month at my primary DC). That latter fact is due mostly to continuing huge investments in the backbone that have increased capacity (pricing being more a function of supply and demand - ergo capacity utilization - than some vast corporate conspiracy involving the complicity of hundreds of thousands of people).

Moving the business model of the last mile to the one on which the vast bulk of the internet operates and where continuing huge investments have resulted in falling capacity utilization and falling prices in general as well as significant bandwidth advances would likely be a positive for consumer access to quality video. And the likelihood that a small publisher could not pay the freight is very low unless some government regulates it (compare land line telecom to wireless for example) resulting in extortionate rates or the continuation of outdated regulated monopolies with monopolistic pricing signed off by the gov.

I really doubt that slow websites would be dumped. Maybe worse ranks but not dump.
Net neutrality? What's that? :) Common, there is no such thing like net neutrality. It's all monitored, penetrated & controlled by US government. But I really wish there was something like net neutrality, there should be something like that.

YEAH........

Even if this is 100% true, it only affects Verizon clients, if you don't use Verizon it won't make any difference to you!