Technology catch-all thread

[Balta1701]

So, on a different subject, Google and Verizon appear to have come to an agreement that, if accepted by regulators, would effectively end the "net neutrality" situation that we currently have.

Real Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers can't discriminate between different kinds of online content and applications. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies. It's what makes sure the next Google, out there in a garage somewhere, has just as good a chance as any giant corporate behemoth to find its audience and thrive online.

 

What Google and Verizon are proposing is fake Net Neutrality. You can read their framework for yourself here or go here to see Google twisting itself in knots about this suddenly "thorny issue." But here are the basics of what the two companies are proposing:

 

1. Under their proposal, there would be no Net Neutrality on wireless networks -- meaning anything goes, from blocking websites and applications to pay-for-priority treatment.

 

2. Their proposed standard for "non-discrimination" on wired networks is so weak that actions like Comcast's widely denounced blocking of BitTorrent would be allowed.

 

3. The deal would let ISPs like Verizon -- instead of Internet users like you -- decide which applications deserve the best quality of service. That's not the way the Internet has ever worked, and it threatens to close the door on tomorrow's innovative applications. (If RealPlayer had been favored a few years ago, would we ever have gotten YouTube?)

 

4. The deal would allow ISPs to effectively split the Internet into "two pipes" -- one of which would be reserved for "managed services," a pay-for-play platform for content and applications. This is the proverbial toll road on the information superhighway, a fast lane reserved for the select few, while the rest of us are stuck on the cyber-equivalent of a winding dirt road.

 

5. The pact proposes to turn the Federal Communications Commission into a toothless watchdog, left fruitlessly chasing consumer complaints but unable to make rules of its own. Instead, it would leave it up to unaccountable (and almost surely industry-controlled) third parties to decide what the rules should be.

 

If there's a silver lining in this whole fiasco it's that, last I checked anyway, it wasn't up to Google and Verizon to write the rules. That's why we have Congress and the FCC.

 

Certainly by now we should have learned -- from AIG, Massey Energy, BP, you name it -- what happens when we let big companies regulate themselves or hope they'll do the right thing.

[lostfan]

f*** you for this Google... yeah funny how quickly they change their tune when they think they see $$ in trying to buy networks I guess. Before they were preaching all that happy lovey-dovey s*** because it'd be other people getting told what to do and the ways they can make money, but now they can just strongarm and suddenly it's all bulls***?

[StrangeSox]

what lost said.

 

Classify it as telecommunications and regulate like it should be. End of story.

[Balta1701]

Classify it as telecommunications and regulate like it should be. End of story.

But that will cost the big guys money. Can't have that.

[RockRaines]

Since when does Comcast block bit-torrent? I get on there all the time.

[lostfan]

AFAIK Verizon has a policy of not blocking anything.

[Balta1701]

Since when does Comcast block bit-torrent? I get on there all the time.

They "slowed" it for a time, supposedly they've stopped.

[Balta1701]

Also, Europe is soon going to have a universal charging system where a single charger design will work for virtually every cell phone for sale on the Continent.

 

Because U.S. regulators have no interest in regulating, however, the U.S. does not look to get this benefit at any point in the near future.

[lostfan]

Also, Europe is soon going to have a universal charging system where a single charger design will work for virtually every cell phone for sale on the Continent.

 

Because U.S. regulators have no interest in regulating, however, the U.S. does not look to get this benefit at any point in the near future.

I thought there was already a law like this in the U.S.?

[Balta1701]

I thought there was already a law like this in the U.S.?

Nope.

 

(That would be a clearly unconstitutional and socialist interference with the rights of businesses to do whatever the Heck they want).

[Chisoxfn]

Stupid idea about this internet rule. Phone charger, don't care as much about.

[Y2HH]

http://www.macworld.com/article/153306/201...l?lsrc=rss_main

 

6 more critical vulnerabilities patched in Flash today. 500,000 to go.

 

As for the Google/Verizon plan -- f*** both of them. So much for Google's "Do No Evil" mantra. As for my thoughts/feelings on Google, that's a whole other can of worms I'm not opening today (as I don't have the time for that rant at the moment), but I'll be sure to check back and deliver.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Y2HH

[lostfan]

http://www.macworld.com/article/153306/201...l?lsrc=rss_main

 

6 more critical vulnerabilities patched in Flash today. 500,000 to go.

 

As for the Google/Verizon plan -- f*** both of them. So much for Google's "Do No Evil" mantra. As for my thoughts/feelings on Google, that's a whole other can of worms I'm not opening today (as I don't have the time for that rant at the moment), but I'll be sure to check back and deliver.

If there's anything you're good for it's a rant.

[kapkomet]

Nope.

 

(That would be a clearly unconstitutional and socialist interference with the rights of businesses to do whatever the Heck they want).

 

 

Yes, they do. Starts in 2011.

[lostfan]

Yes, they do. Starts in 2011.

I thought it was 2012. I'd have gone to look it up but I'm lazy.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Also, Europe is soon going to have a universal charging system where a single charger design will work for virtually every cell phone for sale on the Continent.

 

Because U.S. regulators have no interest in regulating, however, the U.S. does not look to get this benefit at any point in the near future.

well, we would benefit tangentially. Phone makers wont want to make different versions of the phone for every continent. So, on some level it WILL happen in the US, just not officially.

[Balta1701]

Yes, they do. Starts in 2011.

Why doesn't Wired know about this?

[lostfan]

well, we would benefit tangentially. Phone makers wont want to make different versions of the phone for every continent. So, on some level it WILL happen in the US, just not officially.

Well they kind of already do... different voltage (220V everywhere else that I've been), different plug shapes, etc.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Finally, here's a technology to get excited about!!

 

Vienna Beef Hot Dog Stand Locator

 

[BigSqwert]

Just picked up the radiotime app for my android phone since it has The Score 670. What are the odds that it won't have the Sox games streamed?

[Y2HH]

Just picked up the radiotime app for my android phone since it has The Score 670. What are the odds that it won't have the Sox games streamed?

 

I don't think they can because MLB sells such a streaming service and it would probably violate contractual agreements over online decimation of the broadcast. I have a similar app for my iPhone that I use to listen to 670 the score when I'm out of town, etc...but I've never tried it during a Sox broadcast.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Y2HH

[kapkomet]

Just picked up the radiotime app for my android phone since it has The Score 670. What are the odds that it won't have the Sox games streamed?

 

I like this app, it seems to play most things. I don't know if it will check your dns when/if you're out of or in town (depending on blackout issues) or not.

[Y2HH]

The Motorola Droid 43 -- err, 2 -- made it's debut late last week and is apparently plagued by worse reception problems than any phone in history. You'd think that in light of the recent iPhone4 controversy, that Motorola/Verizon went out of their way to make fun of, that they would have went out of their way to make sure something like this wouldn't happen...

[BigSqwert]

The Motorola Droid 43 -- err, 2 -- made it's debut late last week and is apparently plagued by worse reception problems than any phone in history. You'd think that in light of the recent iPhone4 controversy, that Motorola/Verizon went out of their way to make fun of, that they would have went out of their way to make sure something like this wouldn't happen...

Doh!

[Balta1701]

The Motorola Droid 43 -- err, 2 -- made it's debut late last week and is apparently plagued by worse reception problems than any phone in history. You'd think that in light of the recent iPhone4 controversy, that Motorola/Verizon went out of their way to make fun of, that they would have went out of their way to make sure something like this wouldn't happen...

Where are you reading that their reception problems are worse than the iPhone's? I just went through a handful of sites, including apple friendly ones, and got the "haha" impression more than the "This is absolutely terrible" impression. Not that I'm defending either since I have zero horses in this race.

It appears that Motorola’s Droid 2, launched last week, is exhibiting its share of reception-related issues on the Verizon network, although nowhere near as severe as the iPhone 4 death grip problem. MobileCrunch has received “a good number of reports” that an unknown portion of early Droid 2 smartphones are plagued with a range of signal strength issues:

 

The signal on one of the two units we received is all over the board, dipping from full signal down to nearly none whilst sitting in the same spot (and no, we’re not holding it wrong). Engadget’s review says that four out of four of their units show endlessly fluctuating bar counts, and our buddy Rich Brome of Phonescoop says he’s having bad luck with his, as well. That’s 6 review units, all showing signs of signal woes. Not a good sign.