iEntry 10th Anniversary
RSS
Newsletter
Advertising
| Advertisement |
| Popular WPN Business Resources |
 |
 |
|
|
|
-
Search + Social = Better ROI
Are you utilizing search and social media together? According to Lee... -
Yahoo Reveals SEM of Re-Brand
Near the end of September, Yahoo began a new branding campaign in an... -
Marketing in the Age of Google
Former Googler Vanessa Fox has written a book entitled Marketing in...
     |
19 Comments
Betclic.fr
thank you for your interesting article !
Great article, thanks!
Great article, thanks!
Tiered Net
Sounds like time for a tiered internet - one sector for commercial aspects, including commercial content, and another for educational and more discrete information.
I personally think that the
I personally think that the Internet should be open to everyone. However, sometimes its the country you live in that promotes censorship and there is really nothing we can do about that!
Internet Neutrality
I see all this talk about internet neutrality, but is internet really open to all? As an European citizen, I often stuble on American "road blocks": e.g. if I want to check out the latest episodes on scifi.com, I'm blocked, because I'm no American citizen, also: when I want to watch a concert on de BBC-site, I get blocked because I'm not an UK citizen etc.
If you really think, internet should be open to all, let's start with not allowing webservers to discriminate people based on the country they use internet from (including getting rid of those stupid Amazon/Ebay France debacles! And no, I'm no facist).
With a name beginning with the letter g, what do you expect?
Greedy g and company want to CONTROL what WE have access to. The questions is, will humans wake up and expose this CONTROL MATRIX AGENDA? Think for YOUR SELF and BE FREE.
um
I couldn't read any of that. It's too long and dorky.
Sensation creates audience
Media thrives on sensation. Even WebProNews's subject line "Is Google Secretly Anti-Net Neutrality?" was phrased to prompt readers to open the email. And same applies to WSJ.
It reminds me of a James Bond movie (dont remember the name) where the villain wanted to trigger a war at the launch of his news channel.
If Google is paying ISPs to host local caches of its content for faster delivery to the local users, thats not against net neutrality. What would be wrong is if Google also asks the ISPs to either deny similar service or to purposely slow down the delivery of content of Google's competitors.
Not in the UK
The Virgin Media CEO has publicly stated he does not support net neutrality and Virgin are one of the biggest providers in the UK, soon when they start offering video content to download I would bet my wage that downloads from their site are lightning quick, whist others suffer, and perhaps any sites that criticise them. Maybe they will see the link in my comment name and cripple access to my site? (you aren't paranoid if they really are after you!)
If only Gordon Brown was as in touch with the modern world as Obama seems to be.
Sounds like some great link
Sounds like some great link bait created by the Wall Street Journal. Whether the article is accurate or not, according to the accounts in this WebPro article it sounds as though the WSJ article must have got some great traffic!
Legislate and Regulate
What if an arrangement was struck where colocation also meant that net neutrality was maintained. It wouldn't be hard. Legislate it and regulate it. Sure there would be some strong conversations... but in the end the consumer would be better off...
We would then have a faster... and free network.
Sounds good doesn't it...
i dont care good le is
i dont care good le is number 1 try using any other search engine and they all suck compared to google i was using yahoo and i searched for google and it couldnt even find GOOGLE WTF
i dont care good le is
Dear yup: You're an f-ing idiot. Yahoo most certainly returns SERPs when you search for the string "google," so get off the drugs and get a life, man. Geez!
Google and the ISPs
What is the heart of net neutrality? It's not just equal access to the net. It's equal free access. Large web companies spread points of hosting presence out around the country (and sometimes the world) to increase connection speeds for their content. This gives the big boys quicker delivery of their content than the small web companies. Nobody has argued that this violates the tenants of net neutrality.
Google argues that an arrangement with an ISP to colocate servers with the ISP is no different that spreading around points of hosting presence. In theory true but it raises huge red flags when Google begins paying ISPs for a service which speeds delivery of its content to the ISP's users. This is exactly the activity that net neutrality was designed to stop. It smacks of pay to play in the political arena. Yes, anyone can play ... assuming they have enough benjamins. I don't like it.
Google and the ISPs
I could not agree with you more! Not only does is smack of pay to play politics - I catch a whiff of or two of industry monopoly/collusion and the damn right awful stench of unfair competition. This is a tacit step towards google courting the very players whose job I thought it was to prevent actions towards this end. While it is true that CDN (Content Distribution Networks) are at the heart of making the web content that "the people" want more accessible, (youtube is a good example of this) and google as a search engine provider is indexed to this practice - it does seem like a prequel to set the tone for even more audacious and unbelievable manoeuvres, with manifold outcomes:
Drive towards a saturated google web land - de facto a priori.
Already google and the internet are synonyms!
Lower the perceived standards of other providers by comparison - possible but the uniqueness of content I think should prevail.
But for those competing with you tube a little bit unfairer.
Force other players to raise their game - where one leads others follow.
For sure there are a hell of a lot more!! Here's to the future
Check out what is going on in Australia! We Need help!
People have you heard about what is proposed in Australia with the Net censorship being that they want to ask ISPs to filter all content going through them and block sites by IP etc.
And it will slow down the net by up to 87% here!!!
http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet&id=466
Sounds to me like the WSJ has been bought
Astroturf is at it again, trying to muddy the waters since it's the only way to lessen the impact of their coming defeat at the hands of a future FCC with Teeth.
In the meantime some of us find it interesting that Harold Feld is leaving the Media Access Project. One only hopes that an FCC chair or an appointment somewhere in the Obama government is the reason for his resignation.
Sounds like an old tried and true Journalistic trick
Sounds like an old tried and true Journalistic trick; making news where there isn't any. I guess it was a slow day around the Journal.
There is a big difference between getting content on the web faster and getting gouged by your ISP for using bandwidth.
Informed sources say Vishesh Kumar and Christopher Rhoads are full of crap. (You are welcome to quote me)
Don
I had noticed recently that
I had noticed recently that google was sometimes unreachable from my home comcast internet connection, while connections to other search engines continued to function properly.
I was thinking that perhaps something like this was going on, and not working properly. For example, comcast was peering or colocating servers for google, and that connection was overloaded. It would be interesting if other comcast users have noticed this.
Post new comment