Ardit20

Perhaps you are missing the point. If I pay for more bandwith and you do not then we will access every website at the same speed. You might access all sites slower than I do, but the sites you access, are all accessed at the same speed.

So you would have no artificial incentive to visit say the BBC rather then Huffington Post.

But, what internet prioritization is about, is that regardless of the speed of bandwith you have, some websites will be slower and some faster. Sure, if you have a 10mb and I have a 20mb then the slower sites will be even slower to you than me, and the faster sites not as fast as mine, but that is the point. Not that a user can access all sites faster or slower, but that all users can access some sites faster and some slower, regardless of the package they have.

So, if this was the case say in 1998, when Google was the newest and best thing, google.com would be so slow and Yahoo so fast that possibly people would just stick with yahoo.

Then Maybe you should have asked: How have you managed failure, or something like that.

Maybe switching to Mac would be a better comparison.

Didn't. Aren't they becoming capitalists also?

Well the compromise is hardly reasonable.

Still, you can not answer a question with a question. Why should there be any compromise? Verizon's goal and that of the public contradict each other fundamentally. The public votes in the politicians and votes them out, thus is immensely more powerful than Vrizon, thus why compromise at all?

So?

The fact that they are monopolies calls for a tougher line and no compromise absolutely.

Are people so scared of these guys that they are basically going to corrupt all the politicians? I mean, if they lobby, google has more than enough money to match their lobbying and the fact that they are "monopolies" makes google's argument even more powerful, not to mention that they have the backing of the public and the president.

So why compromise? Go for full attack! Fight like brave men. We did not have to compromise with Hitler tho there were plenty I heard who wanted to do so at that time.

You know good and bad are not some metaphorical stuff from the bible, but real concrete stuff which applies to the real world. Internet prioritization is evil, in any platform and form.

Why should there be any compromise with the telecos?

Its about pressure. If Google is stupid enough to make people even contemplate about alternatives, then they would be going on a slippery slope as it is not too difficult to switch, to vote with your legs as it were. Sure Microsoft may be bad, but you have Yahoo search. If you do not like them because of something they do, you can switch from them too, isn't that what free market is all about, alternatives, competition on every variable.

But the previous poster is spot on. There are just as good alternatives to all the services they provide, except perhaps for google maps but that is once in a while use, but they have a monopoly on advertising on the internet and no other alternative even compares.

To be more careful with privacy.

I am sure Google would not want to be prevented to provide a service - personally I think a great service - of viewing the streets of Korea.

Stop telling me what to do!

Well its on BBC news. I am sure it adds pressure on Google and probably sends them a clear signal.

Yes, everyone shares the bandwidth.

Google has loads of money so it can buy loads of bandwidth but the next google might not so the next google won't come to be.

Why is it so bad to simply not have net prioritization at all. I mean, I can access all sites conveniently and I am not really annoyed that they are slow right now. If bandwidth was prioritized however, whether over wireless or anything else, then some sites would be great, some sites would not, and eventually the internet would become like the telly where you need loads of money to establish yourself.

Lol

I was hardly thinking of taxes and I am not American so I do not care much about that aspect, but it would cost more in taxes as the FCC would need to become a much larger entity.

I simply think that all of it kind of sounds like a compromise but when you look it from the perspective of a lawyer it has no teeth. It is a bit like saying the judiciary is independent but the president can set the salary of any individual judge.

I do not quite understand to be honest why would we need the FCC to be a middle man and why would the Non Discriminatory paragraph not grant rights to individuals. Any other entity than the court is very different. A court has the protection of contempt of court, it has the luxury of developing the law through applying it to specific cases, and its independence is enshrined in law and in the culture of the judiciary.

The whole statement is engaged in double speak and you would really need to be a lawyer to understand they are fooling people. The FCC might take test cases to court, but being a test case the court would be much more confined than if it was a specific case. So it would have to interpret the provisions strictly, including what does meaningful harm mean, which was downvoted in another comment but when you are dealing with the law such a thing as meaningful has quite a significance. You aren't talking to your friend and yeah we get the idea. You are trying to apply the law to facts and the facts can be very diverse and to find that meaningful threshold where it differs with insignificance takes many years and many highest level court judgements.

That is only one point. Each sentence if scrutinised carefully shows you how the statement has more holes than cheese and just how fundamentally different and much the worse the internet would be.

Finally, it is a matter of principle that no differences whatever should there be on the internet. I do not understand why anyone would support any traffic prioritization at all. Performing surgery one might say, I say let us get to that point first. To make a phone call to your granma, what is that more important than me getting the research when the paper is in due tomorrow and otherwise I would fail? To invest in the infrastructure and make it better! Why I'd much rather it develops as it has been. My internet is quite fast and it is just average package.

I do not understand why would anyone support any deal whatever between two giant and self interested companies which clearly have in mind screwing the public. If you think that is merely speculation, I repeat again the FCC has stepped in and stopped the talks because they, and as it seemed rightly thought, were conspiring against the public.

Well to just provide one example, Verizon would only have to pay $2,000,000 if they knowingly violate the statue. No criminal sanctions. They can thereafter continue to violate it and just pay another two million. It is a bit of a business deal. If you can get in more money then out, then you are good. The FCC, or anyone else, has no other authority.

Why such a low figure, we are dealing with massive corporations who would notice 2 millions as much as I would notice 2 dollars.

The general public, that is people like me and you, would need to depend on the FCC, and have no rights, which is not quite understandable. Why should I not be able to sue them for discriminating against me? Because of course Verizon is a party to the "law proposal".

Besides, there are exceptions clearly. The FCC would need to enlarge very much if they are to deal with all the complains and have the time to analyse them and follow them through and in the end only be able to impose a miniscule fine.

Not to mention that the providers would have the authority to outright prioritise internet traffic provided they go through some hoops and any lawyer would know just how difficult that is.

Well yes it is not a misleading statement strictly. The statement is true, but it is presented in a misleading way as the one you chose is hardly representative of the general market.

I am not saying that the market is or is not highly competitive. Personally with seeing such share markets of 80% and 90% and one even 98% I think they hardly differ much from monopolies especially since unlike internet businesses there is I would think a high barrier to entry and unlike PCs it is not a new market.

As for retail stores, at least in the UK, they hardly are competitive. We hear of price fixing all the time. They just engage in some game where they lower the prices by a penny and put them up by ten pence etc.

But in any event my point was not to conclude whether the market is or not competitive, but only to provide and alternative.

Because it smacks of second class citizens all over it.

"meaningful harm" - meaningful? Is this a statue we talking about? Is there such a thing as meaningless harm? Is for example meaningful harm to prioritise slightly someone else's traffic. How slight does it have to be. Would it depend on circumstances and create a complex system of law which no one understands?

"the presumption could be rebutted" - Of course. To save the children I am sure, we must always think of the children! - and fat pockets.

"reasonable network management "includes"... to ensure service quality to a subscriber" - What kind of subscriber is he? Could google be a subscriber? Could an internet content provider be a subscriber? I mean, the presumption can be rebutted to save the children as we said!

"to prioritize general classes or types of Internet traffic" - well finally. You could not hide it much longer could you?

"could make use of or access Internet content, applications or services and could include traffic prioritization" Now what you even use the real deal word?

"Wireless Broadband" - Meh, these guys can be the third class citizens, we are only worrying about the second class citizens right now.

" community governance initiatives, and the FCC would be directed to give appropriate deference to decisions or advisory opinions of such groups." - Yeah community, that is, well, what is it? What is a community? What is a governance initiative? Can there be a google governance initiative? Of course to take care of us all.

"forfeiture of up to $2,000,000 for knowing violations of the consumer-protection or non-discrimination provisions" - how much? No I mean if I ear $1000 dollars and get "punished" by being charged $2 I would most definitely be deterred. Perhaps about three more 0s should be added seeing as it is "knowingly violating".

"would not create any new private right of action" - of course not, why would big daddy give the little kids any rights! They will think of the children we are all sure.

We knew you would be selling your soul soon google, but so early? What happened to our romance, was it just a blip, you want to join the evil side too?

Also, why would you do this, why would you just tell the world how self interested you are when the FCC has stopped the talks because and I roughly quote "the guys were becoming bad and greedy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10890495

Non-Discrimination Requirement : In providing broadband Internet access service, a provider would be prohibited from engaging in undue discrimination against any lawful Internet content, application, or service in a manner that causes meaningful harm to competition or to users.Prioritization of Internet traffic would be presumed inconsistent with the non-discrimination standard, but the presumption could be rebutted.

Network Management : Broadband Internet access service providers are permitted to engage in reasonable network management. Reasonable network management includes any technically sound practice: to reduce or mitigate the effects of congestion on its network; to ensure network security or integrity; to address traffic that is unwanted by or harmful to users, the provider’s network, or the Internet; to ensure service quality to a subscriber; to provide services or capabilities consistent with a consumer’s choices; that is consistent with the technical requirements, standards, or best practices adopted by an independent, widely-recognized Internet community governance initiative or standard-setting organization; to prioritize general classes or types of Internet traffic, based on latency; or otherwise to manage the daily operation of its network.

Additional Online Services : A provider that offers a broadband Internet access service complying with the above principles could offer any other additional or differentiated services. Such other services would have to be distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband Internet access service, but could make use of or access Internet content, applications or services and could include traffic prioritization. The FCC would publish an annual report on the effect of these additional services, and immediately report if it finds at any time that these services threaten the meaningful availability of broadband Internet access services or have been devised or promoted in a manner designed to evade these consumer protections.

Wireless Broadband: Because of the unique technical and operational characteristics of wireless networks, and the competitive and still-developing nature of wireless broadband services, only the transparency principle would apply to wireless broadband at this time. The U.S. Government Accountability Office would report to Congress annually on the continued development and robustness of wireless broadband Internet access services.

Case-By-Case Enforcement: The FCC would enforce the consumer protection and nondiscrimination requirements through case-by-case adjudication, but would have no rulemaking authority with respect to those provisions. Parties would be encouraged to use non-governmental dispute resolution processes established by independent, widely-recognized Internet community governance initiatives, and the FCC would be directed to give appropriate deference to decisions or advisory opinions of such groups. The FCC could grant injunctive relief for violations of the consumer protection and non-discrimination provisions. The FCC could impose a forfeiture of up to $2,000,000 for knowing violations of the consumer-protection or non-discrimination provisions. The proposed framework would not affect rights or obligations under existing Federal or State laws that generally apply to businesses, and would not create any new private right of action.

All of the above is the most evil thing I have heard being said about the internet!

Why only product pages?

"the user"

You can hardly conclude by testing with only one user and even if there were more it is only 5 different weblogs.

It might seem intuitive that summaries are better, but how many of the people, sorry, how many articles did the person go on to read?

I think it depends much more on other variables, but fare enough in a corporate blog I would be skimming.

If you are going to make a misleading statement, at least do not provide the data to clearly show your bendy argument.

The combined market share of the largest and second largest insurer provider goes below 50% only in four states. It goes below 60% in only 5 states. That makes a combined 9 states out of 52 or so where there might not be an oligopoly. There are 19 states where their combined share is above 70% and I have used that cut off line strictly, not counting for example 69%.

So yeah, it might be very competitive in 4 states, ok maybe in 9 states. These states seem to be the one I recognise such as California where the combined share is the lowest at 44%, but it seems that for the vast majority of people the market is hardly "very competitive" or competitive at all.

Health and food are two different things. He said he pays $12,000 a year for health cover. There are people there who get $12,000 a year to live on. They can afford food quite fine, but if they get some health problem they would be in deep trouble. Life and death sort of trouble, which you hardly get with food in the west anyway. You only need a dollar to survive at the bare minimum.

So food is not a problem. Nor is housing or transport. The latter are very different from health. You can afford very much not to travel. Walk instead. So too you can afford to not have your own house for a month but live at a friends house. Besides, the vast majority would not want to be provided a free house if they can afford it finely.

But with health there is a matter of principle also. The same principle that each life is precious applies to it. A person should not be free to die because of money in such a rich and prosperous country. Also, there should not be a two tire system whereby the rich can afford first class health care and the poor just enough to get on with plenty of annoyances or worse die.

Really? Which country are you from? Because if you are in the EU we gave loads to Greece. We gave much more to banks some 500 billion on EU level, then there is the national level.

And Nato is in Afghanistan so I think loads of EU nations are fighting wars. Many Eu nations joined the Iraq war too, so I do not think any American is taking a moral stance over high taxes which a European needs not because their moral conscience is clean.

The guy, as said in many other comments has an agenda. SO it is hardly "Americans" but republicans, or conservatives, or democrats as they may be called in some countries.

You get free health care in the UK though. Also, you pay much less for university, well for now anyway. It used to be free only 4 years ago!

I don't quite know the situation in that market, but to provide an alternative, it could also be an oligarchy. That is, there's a number 1 guy with 60% share, a number 2 guy with 20% a number 3 with 10% and some little guys.

It is not hard in an oligarchy to act like a monopoly.

Transportation is more necessary than health? I mean if you ill I think you kinda stay in bed.

But yeah, it should provide food and housing for those people who can not get either as it does in Britain and I am sure there too to some extent?

There's private sector and then there's private sector. I am sure we all would agree that it is best to leave the money at the hands of the general population rather than take it from them and give it to a concentrated small elite.

Besides, whether it is the private or public sector wasting money on wars it hardly makes a difference. It's the people's money and the people would rather keep it or see it used for more productive ends to benefit all and not some elite.

Predictions are hardly a problem. They are fun, we are wired to make them, we have foresight so why not use it. The point when making a prediction is not to be right, but to go through mental scenarios of possibilities based on the present and try and make a rational decision based on that.

And, if someone made a correct prediction in the past, it does not mean he will in the future. Life is great because amongst other things it can take you by complete surprise.

Anyway, that hardly would be on the list of "problems". And google is mainly a service provider than a tool maker. The main service which is search and advertising both of which have plenty of problems which would significantly improve people's life way above predictions. If they solve the many problems of search I would be way happier than if they told me in some sort of big brother way who said what when and why he was wrong and who is right and who should I believe and...

Just keep your feet to the ground google. The world is not yours to occupy, you know mighty empires have tried and failed. Just retain your focus if you may.

As for the micro payments, I was doing some data analysis yesterday and it does come to 0.5 cent per user from advertising revenue. So requesting micro payments might be an annoyance by requiring logging in at all times, etc. Even if the system was so as to not disturb me at all, I would rather not have to pay 0.5 cent. It seems nothing of course, but god knows how many articles I read a day. Especially since the web master hardly would gain much. It might be perhaps a good idea to be an alternative for the user to choose a non ad version of a site and pay 0.5c to do so. I doubt it would catch on though. The internet wants to and needs to be free. Its popularity and usefulness is dependent on the free consumption of information supported by advertising.

Now, google could of course lower the share it gets from ads on sites, I mean, they have a really high profit margin and it is a little bit selfish of them.

Interesting article, but populist, not quite what would you expect from an article on Harvard.

As another person mentioned, people are not horses. A horse is a slave, people always have options, in the most drastic case, crime. It pays well for those with the intelligence I think but the risks are astronomical compared to a 9 to five job.

I think our society if it wishes to become more prosperous needs to realise two things. First, everyone has the potential to be smart at least at the level of the skills needed for many of today's jobs. Thus if someone does not have the skills of this century but that of the last century it is almost everyone's fault, that is the society, the institutions, the culture, but him. Unless of course he or she is biologically mentally inferior in which case it is just and decent to pay taxes to support them.

The second thing is that the Industrial Revolution has moved on to china. It no longer is here. We produce things, but things like software development, biotech, nanotech, high physics, a lot of research, innovative and new products. Not, TVs and cars and that sort of thing. We are so prosperous because we keep making things better and inventing things and finding things and of course because of trade. Once so it is, the automated reproduction, after a certain time shifts to the Industrial Countries.

So, in this economy, you need to use your brain a lot and be taught so since early childhood. It is no good that someone can just fail in school or get Ds, because that someone will probably be tomorrow's unemployed, well conventionally unemployed. Events might be so lucky for him as to stumble upon creating a business, or not so lucky as to stumble upon crime.

I think therefore that if we want to move forward in the most prosperous way it is advisable to not leave anyone behind especially when we have the ability to take everyone with us.

Its not about semantics, it is about connecting a word to reality. America is not an empire. It is perhaps the most successful country on earth, it has great influence, but it is just a country. It might however be trying to become an empire with all those invasions, but it is hardly there yet.