GridStream Productions

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/techn ... ml?_r=1&hp

I really don't like the sound of this. However, I figured I might post this here and get some opinions on it. Is this the end of the net as we know it or much ado about nothing?

So the problem started with Comcast in a federal court. That doesn't surprise me at all. "Secret" meetings about power and money are old news, too. The meeting itself isn't the worry. The deal between Google and Verizon is a concern, but odds are the courts will be called upon again to tie it up so long that by the time anyone knows whether or not it's legal, it will no longer be relevant.

I see no reason for panic here. Concern, perhaps. Who would you trust least with greater control over the internet? Comcast, Verizon, Google, or the F.C.C.? I don't like the idea of any of them getting any more control of anything.

I have issues with any agency that is as pro-censorship as the F.C.C. and I would expect "decency" activists to immediately start pushing them to censor the internet if they managed to make it more regulated. Comcast I don't trust because I hear far too much about their incompetence. They may be doing just fine for some people in some areas, but there were some people who had no complaints about Windows Vista, too.

For Verizon's part, prioritizing content delivery is a lousy temporary solution for improving download speeds from certain highly-visible providers to make it look like their own network is faster overall while grabbing another revenue stream. Google wants to maintain their leads in searching, entertainment content, etc, and fresher search results and less video buffering on high quality streams will do that for them. The cost is paid by the rest of the content providers going through Verizon networks being slowed down and whoever Google chooses to pass on their costs to through their myriad companies.

I'm not sure it's possible to further commercialize the internet, but as long as free content providers can keep pushing their content out at only moderately reduced rates, I won't care. The internet moves too fast for me already. I don't need streaming 1080p. I don't need to download the next 12 GB game demo faster than I can install it. As broadband continues to spread and improve and the backbone continues to be reinforced year by year, it will all keep getting faster anyway, whether it's accelerating evenly or not.

They all just need to slow down, have a danish and some coffee, smell some roses, and mind their own business instead of trying to wring more money and power out of everyone else's.

i dont do news so i dont really care lol, other than as long as it is set in a way that we are not forced to pay the higher prices. and if they are the only provider in that area. dont hike the prices when those people dont have a choice..and thats enuff grey matter on that for still being on my first cup. ;P

Google says not.

https://twitter.com/googlepubpolicy/status/20393606477

Oh, GooglePubPolicy tweets that there are no secret meetings. That makes me feel SOO much better.

If it goes through just sounds like people will just stop using youtube/google and verizon services which would clearly show that the public does not approve. There's plenty of other places to watch funny stuff and plenty of other search engines. As far verizon i've never heard of anyone that uses their internet just their phones and I don't even use those! If the public doesn't want this to happen, they'll make their point (bing here I come).

You may not use Verizon for your internet, but they have one of the largest global backbone networks and carry a significant amount of traffic.