Somebody tell me how this is different from gun manufacturers not allowing research into gun deaths.
Way to compare yourself to gun manufacturers Facebook.
I agree with the substance of the post, but I disagree with the take on the congressional report. Congress is fit to do it's own fact finding for it's legislative purposes, which is what it did. The provided recommendations are about "Restoring Competition in the Digital Economy" and "Strengthening Antitrust Laws & Enforcement."
Google got in trouble for Google Shopping results surfaced on the results page in the EU, and the outcome there was a more diversified way of producing results. Sounds more competitive to me! If Google wants to separate out results it needs to do so fairly, and let users be the judge.
The DoJ lawsuit is clearly driven by incompetence and corruption as others have mentioned.
I use google maps with edge and it isn't unusable if a little slow, and I've been with t-mobile since forever, but this is going to be unacceptable if it doesn't change by the time their android phones come out: http://arstechnica.com/journals/linux.ars/2008/04/26/t-mobile-and-google-cozy-up-with-android
Anybody know of another carrier that can add another line for $10? It's always been $20 with verizon, sprint and at&turd.
The average viewer probably doesn't know how Gore is associated with the network. He seems to promote it about as much his other upstart The Real News, which is none. If the IPO succeeds, it won't be because of Gore because the brand association just isn't there for either brand with the other.
I just think it's a good network, now if only someone would bittorrent or youtube the individual pods, it would be getting somewhere.
It seems to have a lot of big name advertisers now and if it isn't profitable yet, it should be very soon. The content is cheap (and very good, I've been watching it since launch) and they have certainly doe better than Fox business for being in the same amount of homes.
A $100 million IPO on $67 million revenues with 68% growth doesn't seem too bad, but then I know nothing of valuations.
All Indian newspaper websites have had a terrible pop-up problem almost since their inception (http://gujaratsamachar.com, http://mumbaisamachar.com, even the Times of India/India Times) which has begged the question, when will they hire competent web-design people instead of people who likely think more ads in places that people don't want is good for business.
For a while there it seemed like media consolidation was being reversed with Tribune and some other magazine(?) companies... eh, never doubt the power of people like Murdoch.
They said they're dropping either the 3rd or 4th number from an IP in logs... it isn't much, especially not for users who actually have Google accounts. I for one didn't know they kept logs on every search and every user identifiable by IP and thought it was just limited to users with Google accounts. TOR and I2P among other true internet anonymizing services (even those which aren't free) seem more and more appealing by the day.
Make each ISP prioritize all video, and audio services the same, so I can get acess to any VoIP and Video over IP service provider on the internet. It's what the republicans in congress say they're doing (lookup "The Communicators" on C-SPAN) to help promote competition. It's what the Markey ammendment did too if I'm to have read the bloggers who've read the bill and ammendment correctly. The ISP's will just have to hope that someone from another ISP will sign up for their VoIP service if it's cheaper... why it's perfect competition! That's presuming offcourse that prioritizing a whole class of packets doesn't strain the intra-ISP connections, which they're bound to do.
There are loads of technicalities beyond this, like my university shaping traffic for realplayer packets which are important only to the students studying remotely, and how existing services should not be degraded, but if the problem is video and audio, and the internet is to get rid of monopolies, there is no point in myspace spending extra to get preferred treatment on verizon's network alone, and if there is... we might as well not have the internet.
I like the me-owning-the-last-mile-of-the-fiber-coming-to-my-house idea, I get more bandwidth, and the ISP's can concentrate on something other than preserving their monopolies.
The choice of EDGE handsets isn't too great either if you're not willing to shell out the cash for a PDA phone or a Nokia, which t-mobile doesn't subsidize too much. The choice for camera phones which have EDGE narrows down to a couple of Samsungs... and even that with two year contracts. The RAZR doesn't have EDGE, and I'm probably close to a typical buyer, who'd just like to have a fast connection for the occasional use of local google maps for mobile.
Bundle glm, along with an rss reader on something like a samsung t609, advertise a little and watch people use the internet on their phones for something other than tiny resolution video on a tiny screen.
I bit the bullet anyway and signed on for two more years right after t-mobile contracts started becoming two years. I guess it'll be nice that they'll have 3G headsets come next time of renewal.
Still not too late for companies to be learning about what's at the core of web2.0--API's!
It's unclear just how much control the city would be handing over, but if it's a limited amount where the citizens are pluging into an effectively tier 1 or 2 ISP, it can't possibly be bad. It's about owning the "last mile", that's what the muni's should and are helping citizens do. As for "more infrastructure" and "less competition" I'm not convinced.
Mentioning "Instead, the town will have fewer competitors and more infrastructure -- even though they wanted it the other way around. It's a recipe for much more limited, but still more expensive, service." and not "last mile" efforts, is dis-information at best. I expect better.
Isn't the vote in congress over? 300something-100something.
If the telco's want to offer video, they can overbuild first and offer the fiber to home they promised. Allowing QoS for ALL video/voice over IP may not be a bad thing either. Some freedom in managing the network has to be allowed for.
Also, some freedom over net neutrality will have to be given to certain ISP's like universities. Mine prioritizes realplayer packets for video conferencing, and is a grinch when it comes to upload bandwidth.