Skip to main content

View Diary: Google decides it can be evil, sells out on net neutrality--Updated (131 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Except they're wrong (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis

    It's not better for their business. Kill the commons you kill the net and end up with a moribund set of services and no innovation.

    Progressive -> Progress; Conservative -> Con

    by nightsweat on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:15:47 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  What do you think cable tv is? (0+ / 0-)

      It works.

      •  That shows a fundamental misunderstanding (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        phenry, mmacdDE, esquimaux, LiberalATX

        the internet is NOT cable TV.  Cable TV is an asymmetric medium where there are a small number of high-barrier to entry providers and a large number of low-barrier consumers.  It costs a hell of a lot to put together a cable TV network and to keep it provided with content.

        The Internet is a low-barrier set of people who are simultaneously providers of content and consumers. DailyKos didn't take $1,00,000 to set up initially.  Ditto eBay, YouTube, Digg, Yahoo, or any of the 800 pound Gorilla sites.

        Now, you're saying that the traffic from an upstart site is going to get lagged unless you pay protection money to the mob, er, telcos.  That's killing innovation and destroying the high-speed innovation the internet is known for currently.  

        It's dumb and it'll be bad for the economy.

        Progressive -> Progress; Conservative -> Con

        by nightsweat on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:29:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But traffic from an upstart site (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          will ALREADY get lagged if they don't have enough bandwidth or server space/power.

          Ask anybody whose little upstart site has been slashdotted or featured on the news. Or ask Joe Lieberman.

          If you want a major site, one that gets millions of hits, you have to pay for the bandwidth to support it.

          That hasn't changed at all.

          There's a difference between erecting a firewall that blocks traffic, or managing your network infrastructure by throttling back on high bandwidth formats/uses. And both of those are different from requiring sites to pay for the bandwidth they use.

          •  You're talking about going from zero to a million (0+ / 0-)

            The way sites grow is through incremental growth, sometimes accented with (FARK/Digg/Slashdot) spikes that generate ad revenue that lets them buy the upgraded bandwidth.

            Many of the "major" sites didn't set out to be major sites.  They set out to satisfy a niche need that turned out to be much larger than originally thought.

            Progressive -> Progress; Conservative -> Con

            by nightsweat on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 11:03:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Of course that's the way it should work (0+ / 0-)

              you SHOULD grow incrementally, and the biggest and most profitable sites did exactly that.

              But they STILL had to pay for better servers, more space, upgraded programming, and MORE BANDWIDTH.

              You can't become a major, mega money site without a LOT of bandwidth. And that COSTS.

              If you're not willing to spend the money to upgrade to accommodate the traffic, you will NOT become a monster site.

              No way, no how.  

              •  OK, but try that now with cable TV (0+ / 0-)

                There's no analogous model.  You can't get a TV show put together without a ton of money, and to put a channel together you have to have a ton of shows and to get a channel onto the cable stations, you usually have to be bundled with bunches of other stations.

                There's no way to get into the game at all without STARTING with an eight figure plus investment.

                Web sites can start with a couple hundred bucks and grow capacity with their audience.

                Progressive -> Progress; Conservative -> Con

                by nightsweat on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 01:58:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  I was talking about the innovation (0+ / 0-)

          part.  Cable tv was very innovative when it first started.  Now?  Not so much.

          Besides, Google already controls what you see.  The first 5-10 returns on a search are sponsored sites, where someone pays Google to guarantee that you see it.  Money already dictates what you see.  This is a natural progression of what we've already stood still for.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site