Google Voice . . .

[mr_spock]

So, Google has a new service, and one of my good friends has invited me to use it.  I assume (oops, I should know better than to do that) that the invitation means my friend is already using this service

Comments

[unixronin]

Now they are partnering with Verizon to convince the FCC that the government should allow mega-corporations to determine what content you should have access to on the internet, and how much you should have to pay to access content.
Um, no. The Google/Verizon deal has been widely misunderstood, largely solely on the basis of "Google and Verizon made a deal, OH NOES!, it must be bad", and the misunderstanding spread as fact.

FUD aside, the deal that Google was able to push Verizon into offering to the FCC was basically that Verizon cannot prioritize any given outside provider's Internet traffic above any other provider's similar traffic, including their own, for pay; nor may they block or downgrade access to another provider's Internet traffic and require that their customers pay an additional fee to access it; BUT they may still charge an additional fee to their customers to access additional Verizon-specific value-add services that they offer to their customers, over their networkComcrap is a whole 'nother barrel of fish. I'm in

[mr_spock]

You're not seeing the big picture. It's not about what the deal is now, it's about mission creep and who gets to make the rules. If Google/Verizon succeed in influencing the FCC's rules, it will be the corporations that make the rules. Right now the rules might be very public-friendly and even benign, but for how long?

In the original US Constitution, one of the responsibilities delegated to government was the regulation of commerce. I'm all in favor of government doing that, and leaving John Q. Public alone. Let us educate ourselves, medicate ourselves, even feed/starve ourselves, without their intervention. Don't use tax money to reward failure in business (bailouts), either.

[unixronin]

It's not about what the deal is now, it's about mission creep and who gets to make the rules.
That's true, and Google's goal is to set the precedent of "The Internet MUST be content-agnostic". Verizon originally wanted to talk the FCC into allowing them to prioritize their traffic above other providers' similar traffic, and charge access fees to their customers for the privilege of accessing other providers' content unimpeded - a big step back towards the AOL walled garden. Google was able to convince them to see that this was a bad idea, for them in the long run as much as for anyone else. The folks to whom Google Is Evil see only "Google cut a deal with Verizon", but the truth is that Google - though, yes, they have inarguably made their share of blunders; who hasn't? - is firmly on the side of 'Net neutrality, and has managed to successfully talk Verizon over onto their side. I really can't see that as anything but a good thing