Google's slogan has long been "Do No Evil", but according to an article in The Huffington Post, Google has gone to the dark side.
The article is in relation to Google's proposed deal with Verizon, which appears to be a blow to the Net Neutrality campaign that Google has been a key supporter of.
Google and Verizon's deal basically classes Wireless Internet as something that does not need to be protected via Net Neutrality, and that future tech beyond wireless will get even less protection. Without Net Neutrality, large corporations like Google and Verizon can make deals behind closed doors which will give preferential treatment, in terms of bandwidth and access speeds, to websites and contents that they choose. In essence, it means moving from a public Internet model, to a two tiered model featuring the "old" Internet, and a "new" private one for premium services and content.
Some critics have called the reactions to this proposal hysteria, since Net Neutrality is a fairly vague concept. For example, if your ISP provided a cache of the most popular YouTube content and offer faster access to this cache, then does this break Net Neutrality, since YouTube content is being given preferential treatment over content from other video networks. But the ISP will argue that since YouTube is the most popular, caching would be most effective for it, and the faster access is beneficial for end users, and not just a cost effective solution for the ISP. Of course, when ISPs start to prioritize cached traffic over non cached traffic (ie. slow access speeds to non cached content in order to improve performance of cached content), then users might have more to complain about.
Petition to Google: Don't be Evil:
The Huffington Post article:
PC World: 5 red flags of the Google/Verizon deal:
The article is in relation to Google's proposed deal with Verizon, which appears to be a blow to the Net Neutrality campaign that Google has been a key supporter of.
Google and Verizon's deal basically classes Wireless Internet as something that does not need to be protected via Net Neutrality, and that future tech beyond wireless will get even less protection. Without Net Neutrality, large corporations like Google and Verizon can make deals behind closed doors which will give preferential treatment, in terms of bandwidth and access speeds, to websites and contents that they choose. In essence, it means moving from a public Internet model, to a two tiered model featuring the "old" Internet, and a "new" private one for premium services and content.
Some critics have called the reactions to this proposal hysteria, since Net Neutrality is a fairly vague concept. For example, if your ISP provided a cache of the most popular YouTube content and offer faster access to this cache, then does this break Net Neutrality, since YouTube content is being given preferential treatment over content from other video networks. But the ISP will argue that since YouTube is the most popular, caching would be most effective for it, and the faster access is beneficial for end users, and not just a cost effective solution for the ISP. Of course, when ISPs start to prioritize cached traffic over non cached traffic (ie. slow access speeds to non cached content in order to improve performance of cached content), then users might have more to complain about.
Petition to Google: Don't be Evil:
The Huffington Post article:
PC World: 5 red flags of the Google/Verizon deal:
Comment