What do you think about Google and Verizon's "Net Neutrality Proposal?"

[wersdaluv]

Google and Verizon just announced a Net Neutrality proposal (http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/live-blogging-google-verizon-call-on-net-neutrality/?src=twt&twt=nytimesbits#no-business-deal). Like myself, many are't happy with it. Gizmodo (http://gizmodo.com/5608422/google-and-verizon-issue-joint-proposal-for-net-neutrality-policy?skyline=true&s=i) finds it worrisome, USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2010-08-09-google-verison-net-neutrality_N.htm) describes the negative response of the public, etc.

What do you think about this?

EDIT:
It implies that they won't touch net neutrality on wired lines, but on wireless, they will discriminate contents by type (like audio vs. video)

(Can't believe this hasn't been posted yet. If it's being discussed already, feel free to merge this thread.)

[Legendary_Bibo]

What does it mean? I couldn't find what it meant in the first link and I don't feel like reading through more.

[Sand & Mercury]

After reading the Gizmodo article, perhaps I am just retarded? Could someone please point me to the part about this proposal that is bad?

[Bachstelze]

After reading the Gizmodo article, perhaps I am just retarded? Could someone please point me to the part about this proposal that is bad?

It is bad because it makes an artificial distinction between wired and wireless Internet. Apparently, for the latter, Net neutrality is void.

The NY Times has a "Room for Debate" article (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/08/09/who-gets-priority-on-the-web?hp) about this.

[wersdaluv]

It is bad because it makes an artificial distinction between wired and wireless Internet. Apparently, for the latter, Net neutrality is void.

The NY Times has a "Room for Debate" article (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/08/09/who-gets-priority-on-the-web?hp) about this.
There you go! Thanks

[Legendary_Bibo]

Oh, it affects cell phones and people who use wireless internet for other devices from their cell phone companies. I don't have a cell phone, or use a cell carrier. So...I'm not interested. I'll be leaving this thread now.

[Bachstelze]

Oh, it affects cell phones and people who use wireless internet for other devices from their cell phone companies. I don't have a cell phone, or use a cell carrier. So...I'm not interested. I'll be leaving this thread now.

I'm not concerned, so I'll leave. Some people never learn. Remember "First they came...".

[YuiDaoren]

Always seems like disaster to allow preferred traffic. Barring small (innovative and inventive) companies and start-ups from getting access to bandwidth, and making high bandwidth the sole domain of large, established companies. Meanwhile, 'ghetto traffic' bandwidth would be neglected in favor of the higher profit 'preferred services', further making it difficult or impossible for the small content providers to get a foot in the door.

I don't see how pretending that wireless is different from wired communications would make such a separation any better.


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all DS3s were created equal..."

[schreber]

Both the NY Times and Google Public Policy Blog entry (here (http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-for-open-internet.html)) seem a tad too vague.
- How are they distinguishing between wired and wireless?
- I assume that since they're trying regulate wireless (connectivity) like wired (connectivity) they are hoping that it won't stifle "innovation" but it doesn't really say that they won't try to regulate it at some point in the near/distant future (sounds as if they're not attempting to turn into the next AT&T with their "crappy" 2GB / month thingy)

My take is it's a lot of "doublespeak" and fancy words to entice the lay internet user into think this is a good thing and won't have any adverse effect on their "transparent" internet activities but in reality it would seem as if "big brother" is getting want they want.

[NCLI]

I actually think this is a fair proposal, but only for the short term. Currently, mobile broadband is not capable of meeting the requirements of a small percentage of powerusers, without making it very slow and unusable for everybody else.

This proposal means that traditional broadband, which has plenty of bandwidth for everyone, will be sacred and untouchable, while a few regulations will be imposed on the mobile broadband.

If find that Google has the least confusing explanation (http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-for-open-internet.html) of all this.

[handy]

This proposal could indeed turn out to be a positive thing.

There are monstrous corporations working to create a fast approaching future where they control as much of the worlds internet as possible.

This proposal if adopted by the US government could go a very long way towards protecting the freedom of the internet that so many of us in our various countries still enjoy.

This proposal is about not letting the big boys take away our internet freedom.

As other more specialised & costly closed subscription services are built on top of the internet as we know it now, they will be treated differently & will not be governed under this proposal.

The reason that wireless was left out, is that it is still developing & changing rapidly & due to this it is too early to be able to come up with policies that will remain valid for very long.

I hope I'm understanding it correctly.

[amitabhishek]

What does it mean? I couldn't find what it meant in the first link and I don't feel like reading through more.

^^This.

Can someone in one-line care to explain what this brouhaha is all about?

[Bachstelze]

^^This.

Can someone in one-line care to explain what this brouhaha is all about?

Google is evil.

[NCLI]

Google is evil.
No. The opposite, actually.

Can someone in one-line care to explain what this brouhaha is all about?
One line summary: Google and Verizon have presented a proposal which will prevent ISPs from separating internet sites like cable TV currently separates different channels into various packages you have to buy to gain access. This doesn't include mobile broadband though.

Read this (http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-for-open-internet.html) for more fairly intelligible information and details.

[Nick_Jinn]

I think the corporate structure is inherently evil. Plutocracy is not democratic or egalitarian. When you have a handful of people controlling all the wealth its no better than an unelected dictatorship.


So the bills has some pros and cons....it protects some freedoms in a time when none are yet guaranteed....but it preemptively wipes out other freedoms.


So all they have to do is make any portion of the signal wireless.....What if future technology blurs the line between wired and wireless?




I think this agreement is dangerous.... Apparently Obama (And I dont fully trust any politician) is irritated that Google and Verizon, the corporations, can go behind his back and make up the rules themselves as they go along....I guess the corporations feel like they are running the show. Big surprise there.


That is why using Linux is an ethical issue for me rather than a practical one. Its a big deal when the corporations own everything.

[Bachstelze]

One line summary: Google and Verizon have presented a proposal which will prevent ISPs from separating internet sites like cable TV currently separates different channels into various packages you have to buy to gain access.

That's two lines, and you forgot the most important part.

[NCLI]

That's two lines, and you forgot the most important part.

Edited. Can't make it one line though.

[wersdaluv]

That's two lines, and you forgot the most important part.
And the third line is? :)

[Lucifer The Dark]

If they gave us what we paid for in the first place then maybe this would be a good idea.

[amitabhishek]

Google is not evil; considering its listed and answerable to shareholders. Others are worse!

I have read the article. What I understand is the proposal plainly says that ISP will neither block the content nor offer it a fast lane. They are favoring an open internet. Prima facie I don't see anything wrong.

[handy]

If they gave us what we paid for in the first place then maybe this would be a good idea.

What do you mean?

[Grenage]

I think the corporate structure is inherently evil. Plutocracy is not democratic or egalitarian. When you have a handful of people controlling all the wealth its no better than an unelected dictatorship.

Lol, welcome to capitalism; like most things, it has its pros and cons.

[Dr. C]

Google is not evil; considering its listed and answerable to shareholders. Others are worse!

I have read the article. What I understand is the proposal plainly says that ISP will neither block the content nor offer it a fast lane. They are favoring an open internet. Prima facie I don't see anything wrong.

Wireless is the issue here. The open Internet applies only to wired not wireless connections.

[Bachstelze]

Wireless is the issue here. The open Internet applies only to wired not wireless connections.

And I would add that since wireless Internet tends to be more and more ubiquitous nowadays, this can hardly be dismissed as a minor issue.

[betrunkenaffe]

Google is not evil; considering its listed and answerable to shareholders. Others are worse!

I have read the article. What I understand is the proposal plainly says that ISP will neither block the content nor offer it a fast lane. They are favoring an open internet. Prima facie I don't see anything wrong.

Wait! You think that because a company is beholden to shareholders that it improves it's moral compass? If anything, it's the exact opposite. If you want a good example, watch http://vodo.net/yesmen.

Back to topic at hand, if the wired internet is uncensorable, then wireless services can always be made uncensorable by either the government (ha) or corporations (small or large) as demand requires. That being said, I'm going to bow out because I'm not an American :)

[wewantutopia]

Wait! You think that because a company is beholden to shareholders that it improves it's moral compass? If anything, it's the exact opposite. If you want a good example, watch http://vodo.net/yesmen.


Yeah, exactly. If Google and Verizon struck a deal where all non-Google sites got 1kbs and Google sites (and sites with their ads) got the rest, I'm pretty sure that the stock holders wouldn't care since it would offer Google huge profits (which is good for the shareholder). Thusly, being answerable to shareholders != moral.

[Cavsfan]

I think the corporate structure is inherently evil. Plutocracy is not democratic or egalitarian. When you have a handful of people controlling all the wealth its no better than an unelected dictatorship.


So the bills has some pros and cons....it protects some freedoms in a time when none are yet guaranteed....but it preemptively wipes out other freedoms.


So all they have to do is make any portion of the signal wireless.....What if future technology blurs the line between wired and wireless?




I think this agreement is dangerous.... Apparently Obama (And I dont fully trust any politician) is irritated that Google and Verizon, the corporations, can go behind his back and make up the rules themselves as they go along....I guess the corporations feel like they are running the show. Big surprise there.


That is why using Linux is an ethical issue for me rather than a practical one. Its a big deal when the corporations own everything.

I like your response the best and I do not like Google and since Verison has Android (Google OS) I am not really liking them either.
Do you have a link that mentions how President Obama is irritated by these 2 companies?
Thanks! :D

[MCVenom]

I like your response the best and I do not like Google and since Verison has Android (Google OS) I am not really liking them either.
Do you have a link that mentions how President Obama is irritated by these 2 companies?
Thanks! :D
I don't like Apple, because they're closed off and don't contribute as much to FOSS as Google, and since AT&T has the iPhone (as well as a crappy network), and exacts totalitarian control on their Android phones, I don't like them either :P </reciprocating rant>

Anyway, I really like this proposal on the short-term. Google seems to have what they want (Net Neutrality on at least wired internet), and Verizon, hopefully not for too long, has what they want ('Freedom' to muck around on their wireless network to pocket some more money and maybe decrease bandwidth concerns on their network, so they don't end up like AT&T, overloaded).

I really felt like things were lining up to kill *any* sort of Net Neutrality at all, so this is a very welcome compromise to me.

[Bachstelze]

and Verizon, hopefully not for too long, has what they want

Such naïveté is almost touching.

[MCVenom]

Such naïveté is almost touching.
Now now, there's no need for condescension :roll:

This comment sums it up quite nicely:

Wireless is treated differently than wireline broadband access for a few reasons:
While there are practical commercial limitations, wireline BB access uses a controlled media that is only limited by the number of lines or fibers that are physically run. Wires and fiber optics are the backbone transport for all terminations to end points/users. As such, these need be open.

The most leveraged/critical connection is that to the end user. No other media connects the user to 'whenever, wherever connectivity' like wireless. And due to 4G and B4G technologies, the use of wireless opens up a huge frontier of basic and innovative access.

Wireless faces the real world problems of a limited amount of spectrum and ever-changing 'media'. The air above your heads and around you changes because of walls, trees, rain, terrain frequency, interference... all of which are not directly controlled as is the case with wired/fiber media. That dynamic, difficult environment makes it a necessity to do a lot of signal processing that changes instantaneously "as the wind blows" so to speak. And that raises the cost and also the inherent technical necessity to control the way signals are sent.

For all the free Internet advocates, you need to put on your thinking caps as Google management has done.. the conclusion may be some compromise with vested money/spectrum monopolists, but, nonetheless, is the correct line of thinking.
The devil is always in the details. Open Internet advocates should seek reasonable access for applications and content.. if Verizon or Google get access under particular terms, every other competitor or individual should have the same. Within Verizon or any other operator the cost and QoS should be equal/equivalent with all others. P2P torrent/donkey should be allowed access on equal terms as other bandwidth abusers that can detract from other users experience.

[Nick_Jinn]

If they gave us what we paid for in the first place then maybe this would be a good idea.


Yeah. If they were just honest in marketing, they wouldnt have to shape traffic. If they are going to sell 250gb of bandwidth, they should have to deliver, regardless of use.

If in reality they only intent to give you 25gb, or less, why not just sell less to begin with then its their own damn fault if they run out early downloading movies? That seems like the honest solution.

Making promises you cant keep then blaming the customer for using the bandwidth they bought, regardless of what for, isnt the answer.....or its one answer, but its dishonest on the providers end. Why not just be honest about what you are willing to provide, and its their fault if they go over?

[Grenage]

Yeah. If they were just honest in marketing, they wouldnt have to shape traffic. If they are going to sell 250gb of bandwidth, they should have to deliver, regardless of use.

If in reality they only intent to give you 25gb, or less, why not just sell less to begin with then its their own damn fault if they run out early downloading movies? That seems like the honest solution.

Making promises you cant keep then blaming the customer for using the bandwidth they bought, regardless of what for, isnt the answer.....or its one answer, but its dishonest on the providers end. Why not just be honest about what you are willing to provide, and its their fault if they go over?

Because unless all the companies are doing such, people will get an account with the company offering 'unlimited data' at 'max speeds'.

[Wrathful_Pixie]

Because unless all the companies are doing such, people will get an account with the company offering 'unlimited data' at 'max speeds'.


If a company really can offer unlimited data and max speeds as advertised then they earned their new customers fair and square. If they cannot then that makes them liars.

[WinterMadness]

i dont like it because eventually everything will be wireless and guess what? were screwed

[Grenage]

Alas, the small-print, it's usually there.

In the UK, most ISPs (be they mobile or wired) have a 'fair use' policy. A rough guide for unlimited data on a phone might be 750MB. For your average customer, that mill be more than enough.

While their offer statements are generic, they're only liars if it's not covered in the small print - and that kind of stuff is usually well spelled out.

[Wrathful_Pixie]

Legal or not, I think its unethical to trick people. I would support making it a law that they cannot discriminate against different types of web users.

[handy]

Google stated the following:

Sixth, we both recognize that wireless broadband is different from the traditional wireline world, in part because the mobile marketplace is more competitive and changing rapidly. In recognition of the still-nascent nature of the wireless broadband marketplace, under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency requirement. In addition, the Government Accountability Office would be required to report to Congress annually on developments in the wireless broadband marketplace, and whether or not current policies are working to protect consumers.

Which sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Most people in this thread seem to be reacting without reading & understanding what the statements are intended to convey.

I think that the Google / Verizon proposal is very likely the best thing that has happened to date in the interest of ensuring the survival of the internet as we know it.

[Nick_Jinn]

A lot of times things are worded just beautifully by master lawyers, and yet there are loopholes intentionally left in there a mile wide.

What if Obamas plan for net neutrality is even broader and better for us? We should see what the alternative is, though I dont fully trust any politician (Even Obama) and certainly no corporation (even google). There is too much money on the line to assume they will always only act in humanities best interest, though I *prefer* them as a corporate model over Windows or ATT.


There is also the issue of the corporations writting their own laws.....should the corporations be the ones who write up and implement laws? The people who donate money to the politicians? Or should the state and the voters impose regulations on behalf of the consumers whether the corporations like it or not? Our freedom is on the line here, and we are between a rock and a hard place between the corporations and government.

[handy]

Paranoia gives what it gets.

People really should give this proposal a chance.

See what it does, THEN, make a judgement on both the implementation & the results (if it gets that far). Hopefully it will progress far enough to give us real results.

Time will tell as usual, so I say lets give it some time & see what happens eh?

Just because a chook has feathers that we don't like, doesn't mean we should automatically cut its head off.

[Nick_Jinn]

To me that sounds like leap first and look second. How did that work out with the Patriot act? Sometimes doing things is a lot easier than undoing them. Its important to move carefully on these precedent setting issues.....the fact that the corporations would oppose net neutrality and privacy for their own profits and marketing is not paranoia, its reality.



Now what happens when all technology ends up being wireless? What happens when the government provides universal wifi as a public service and land lines are a thing of the past? Net neutrality and privacy becomes a thing of the past also?


I think we need a bold and all inclusive protection.


This should be just FINE for the mobil corporations. Torrents and such.....Why not offer what you really actually are willing to provide, and if people go over then charge them for it? If everyone is forced to do it together then they wont have to worry about losing out when somebody else can claim to provide 'unlimited', because without traffic shaping they wont be able to provide that....or if they do, GREAT!!!

All I want is truth in advertising. I want them to compete for my business by offering a better product, not just based on who has the trickiest language and fine print.

[handy]

Take your sunglasses off? :)

[Cavsfan]

Ethical shmethical... As sure as the sun rises, these companies as well as politicians lie!
That is a proven indisputable fact! The fact that they lie and get away with it makes me sick.
There are elections coming up in the US and the candidates putting in a lot of their own
money are winning their races even though they are lying through their teeth.
Yet, they will no doubt win! Money will always win.

Google is huge and Verizon is huge. Their money and power will dictate what is to come.
And no one has yet seen any of the fine print on this deal. The fine print alone could occupy 3-10 pages.
And what they do not accomplish straight forward, they will accomplish in their fine print.

"All power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely." --- Lord Acton


Take your sunglasses off? :)
And handy - take your blinders off.

[spoons]

If Google's shareholders want money, Google will get it. I wouldn't put untrustworthy deeds past them.

If everyone on this forum bought 10 shares, how much of Google would we own?

[Nick_Jinn]

Just because 'so far' google has been *comparably* more benign as an economic super power than say, Microsoft or ATT, they have a few shady moments in their past themselves and whenever that much money and power is consolidated, you better worry.....It doesnt matter if its the concentration of capital making up a plutocracy or the concentration of political power making up a Communist Vanguard, the end result is the same....the few have power and the rest get screwed.


One of the reasons I really like Linux is how egalitarian it is....sure, there are 'devs' who run distros and the forums are not under our democratic control, but we all have the freedom to split off and take advantage of common means of production (Linux kernel and GNU/GPL). Anyone here can make their own small spinoff if they dont like the direction something is going, or join somebody who is....and they dont even have to be that different aside for a few things you dont like. I think society should be modeled in a similar way....Where the means of production are shared in common, but where we also value our freedom and autonomy and our privacy.

/ rant


The bill has some pros and cons, but I am skeptical. I would rather their proposal be taken as a suggestion, considered, then talked about by law makers....Good ideas or not, I am concerned about the future when corporations start writing laws directly for the state, after funding their campaigns....at some point you have to wonder if the corporations really own the government and democracy is just a circus act.

[Nick_Jinn]

If Google's shareholders want money, Google will get it. I wouldn't put untrustworthy deeds past them.

If everyone on this forum bought 10 shares, how much of Google would we own?


Maybe enough that a representative would get a notice in the mail about changes to the company, along with updates and progress reports......probably less than 1%. We wouldnt be invited to any board meetings to decide the fate of the company.

[handy]

All that you lot want to do is bitch.

Try turning around on your high heels & see the other point of view?

It may or may not be correct, though your doing so will at least cause expansion. Though whether the expansion happens in your minds or not is questionable.

[Nick_Jinn]

I dont take this debate personally at all, and hopefully neither do you. We have options. Its all good. 'Opening your mind' Goes both ways though. Anyone who disagrees can use that tactic regardless of which side they are on. Yeah, its good to understand your opponents (not that you are really an *opponent* just a fellow linux user with a different viewpoint). Its good to step in someone elses shoes. That is what Sun Tzu taught. Its hard to know if anyone is objectively right or wrong here. We have opinions and concerns and reasons for those concerns....Google might not be the worst, but the corporations in general are out to protect their bottom line....if you think that its all philanthropy because they are just trying to help humanity....well, I hope so, but it seems like wishful thinking. Maybe some good ideas are in the bill, but the lawmakers should be the ones to take those suggestions and edit them.

[handy]

Which is exactly what Google & Verizon have asked them to do.

[Cavsfan]

I would like to be optimistic about congress looking this proposal over, but am finding it very hard.

Congress has proven time and time again that they are out more for their own survival
and their own good than the good of their constituents, unless of course they are big
money donors. If Google or Verizon pads their pockets enough, they will get what ever
they desire.

“We have the best Congress money can buy.” ---Will Rogers (and Will was born in 1879)

I agree there should be no animosity here as we are only sharing opinions and you know what they say about opinions...

[Dsafire]

Additional Online Services: A provider that offers a broadband Internet access service complying with the above principles could offer any other additional or differentiated services. Such other services would have to be distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband Internet access service, but could make use of or access Internet content, applications or services and could include traffic prioritization. (bold mine)

Err, it it just me or does this section possibly read as "We will let you buy your way out of being traffic-shaped down to 6 KBPS."

[Nick_Jinn]

Are the corporations losing money, currently, despite the use of torrents? I thought not.

If they can make money anyway, and they are....record profits btw, I see no reason to appeal to their green by giving them a green light to shape traffic. Just tell them to spend some of their profits on new infrastructure so they can handle it.

[Cavsfan]

Are the corporations losing money, currently, despite the use of torrents? I thought not.

If they can make money anyway, and they are....record profits btw, I see no reason to appeal to their green by giving them a green light to shape traffic. Just tell them to spend some of their profits on new infrastructure so they can handle it.

I agree! Google is about 500 US dollars per share. I don't know what Verizon is worth, but they have the
absolute largest internet backbone in the US. I know as I worked for Wiltel, which at the time was the 4th
largest and specialized in business long distance. They were bought by Worldcom who then bought MCI
and stupidly let MCI take over the operations and then the largest fraud scheme in history happened.
Making Enron look like a minor mistake. Bernie Ebbers went to prison and I believe got himself a husband. :)

Verizon bought that mess after it cooled down. And as a result, have the largest network of anyone in the US.
That is also why they have the strongest signal in the US. That makes them the most powerful cell phone carrier in the US.

They are the 2 largest companies that do what they do. And they are definitely making a profit.

On a side note, anyone ever seen those shows about google and how they came to be?
I believe it was on the history channel, but not sure. They hired engineers - the very best
of the best from MIT, Cal Tech, Stanford and others. They spared no expense to become what they are - the top search engine in the world.

So, yea they can afford to do anything they need to do...

[handy]

If Google's shareholders want money, Google will get it. I wouldn't put untrustworthy deeds past them.

If everyone on this forum bought 10 shares, how much of Google would we own?

Last time I looked, Google's shares were worth approx' $430- US!

[handy]

NEWS News media Information 202 / 418-0500Fax-On-Demand 202 / 418-2830 TTY 202/418-2555Internet: http://www.fcc.govftp.fcc.gov
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, D. C. 20554
This is an unofficial announcement of Commission action. Release of the full text of a Commission order
constitutes official action. See MCI v. FCC. 515 F 2d 385 (D.C. Circ 1974).
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NEWS MEDIA CONTACT:
August 9, 2010 John Giusti - (202) 418-2000
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS
ON VERIZON-GOOGLE ANNOUNCEMENT
“Some will claim this announcement moves the discussion forward. That’s one of its
many problems. It is time to move a decision forward—a decision to reassert FCC authority
over broadband telecommunications, to guarantee an open Internet now and forever, and to put
the interests of consumers in front of the interests of giant corporations.”
- FCC -


http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db0809/DOC-300754A1.txt

That is one VERY powerful set of words up there. :D

[Nick_Jinn]

Maybe the next thing in advertising should be to use torrents as the default criteria for how fast the 'overall' Internet is.......Like you have a commercial...."Much like processor speeds, 'max download' speeds are no longer the sole determining factor for ISP performance....this torrent took 11 hours and 43 minutes with Comcast/Charter....with our broadband service, this torrent download was completed in under 1 hour at half of their 'max download speed'.

It would poke a hole in their entire illusion if even 1 ISP provider started doing that, but it would have to be a real test using traffic that is obviously being shaped.....and it would be funny to point out the discrepancy between Comcasts speed tests from their site and independent third party results, right on network television.


Comcast recently got sued for traffic shaping, but I think they are still doing it, because lawsuit or not, they figure the penalty is worth the profits, as if record revenue wasnt enough already....its never enough. That business model is never satisfied. It always has to have more.

[Nick_Jinn]

NEWS News media Information 202 / 418-0500Fax-On-Demand 202 / 418-2830 TTY 202/418-2555Internet: http://www.fcc.govftp.fcc.gov
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, D. C. 20554
This is an unofficial announcement of Commission action. Release of the full text of a Commission order
constitutes official action. See MCI v. FCC. 515 F 2d 385 (D.C. Circ 1974).
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NEWS MEDIA CONTACT:
August 9, 2010 John Giusti - (202) 418-2000
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS
ON VERIZON-GOOGLE ANNOUNCEMENT
“Some will claim this announcement moves the discussion forward. That’s one of its
many problems. It is time to move a decision forward—a decision to reassert FCC authority
over broadband telecommunications, to guarantee an open Internet now and forever, and to put
the interests of consumers in front of the interests of giant corporations.”
- FCC -


http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db0809/DOC-300754A1.txt

That is one VERY powerful set of words up there. :D



Nice.
While there are some good things in the google/verizon proposal, they are probably not as strong as what the FCC wants under Obama, and its a last ditch effort to save face with a compromise....Let the FCC take a more aggressive stance in protecting net neutrality. Regardless of the good points from Google, an even more aggressive protection is in all of our interests. Lets support that.

[saulgoode]

Google stated the following:

Sixth, we both recognize that wireless broadband is different from the traditional wireline world, in part because the mobile marketplace is more competitive and changing rapidly. In recognition of the still-nascent nature of the wireless broadband marketplace, under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency requirement. In addition, the Government Accountability Office would be required to report to Congress annually on developments in the wireless broadband marketplace, and whether or not current policies are working to protect consumers.

Which sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
I don't see the reasoning. Because a field is in its seminal, competitive stages is not justification for government to abandon their duty to safeguard the public's interests. One wouldn't expect the Food & Drug Administration to relax their oversight of pharmaceutical companies just because of an upsurge in advancements in "stamina enhancement" (which, going by my e-mail inbox, appears to be a highly competitive field). Or the Federal Aviation Administration to relax safety requirements just because there is a great deal of innovation and competition taking place in the field of fly-by-wire electronics or computer-based navigation and control. Or the Department of Agriculture to drop regulating forestry management because of innovations and competitiveness appearing in the timber industry.

In fact, it would seem prudent that rapidly changing and competitive activities be more closely monitored by government regulatory commissions; especially so when the activity involves the government granting exclusive monopolies over publicly-owned resources to large multinational corporations.

[handy]

Google & Verizon are actually asking the for the government monitoring of wireless networking:

In addition, the Government Accountability Office would be required to report to Congress annually on developments in the wireless broadband marketplace, and whether or not current policies are working to protect consumers.

What alternative method would you use when making such a submission in the hope that is will be considered practical by & therefore have a strong chance of being accepted by these particular bureaucracies?

[saulgoode]

Google & Verizon are actually asking the for the government monitoring of wireless networking:
They're asking that the government deregulate wireless, instead to hold an annual review of the impact of that deregulation. That does nothing to address the argument whether or not wireless should be deregulated.

There may be valid justification for exempting wireless from the FCC's mandate to "promote technology neutrality", but the Google/Verizon proposal did not provide them. The only arguments they supplied were that wireless was "different" and (partly) that it was "more competitive and changing rapidly". Without any further analysis, those arguments could just as easily provide grounds for a more intense application of neutrality principals to broadband than for landlines.

[handy]

Perhaps you are right?

I tend to think that there is a lot more to the story though.

I could present all kinds of argument, but have thought why bother?

It will all come out in the wash & it matters very little what I think will or won't happen in the end.

I still hold hope though, for all it is worth. :)

So much of what we talk about in this forum & elsewhere, is in the end totally inconsequential, all we are doing is amusing ourselves...

Apart from survival & sex, what else is there of any import to our species?

(Though I do have thoughts on that, as inconsequential as they may be. :D)

[Cavsfan]

news news media information 202 / 418-0500fax-on-demand 202 / 418-2830 tty 202/418-2555internet: http://www.fcc.govftp.fcc.gov
federal communications commission
445 12th street, s.w.
Washington, d. C. 20554
this is an unofficial announcement of commission action. Release of the full text of a commission order
constitutes official action. See mci v. Fcc. 515 f 2d 385 (d.c. Circ 1974).
For immediate release news media contact:
August 9, 2010 john giusti - (202) 418-2000
statement of
commissioner michael j. Copps
on verizon-google announcement
“some will claim this announcement moves the discussion forward. That’s one of its
many problems. It is time to move a decision forward—a decision to reassert fcc authority
over broadband telecommunications, to guarantee an open internet now and forever, and to put
the interests of consumers in front of the interests of giant corporations.”
- fcc -


http://www.fcc.gov/daily_releases/daily_business/2010/db0809/doc-300754a1.txt

that is one very powerful set of words up there. :d

+1

[Nick_Jinn]

Perhaps you are right?

I tend to think that there is a lot more to the story though.

I could present all kinds of argument, but have thought why bother?

It will all come out in the wash & it matters very little what I think will or won't happen in the end.

I still hold hope though, for all it is worth. :)

So much of what we talk about in this forum & elsewhere, is in the end totally inconsequential, all we are doing is amusing ourselves...

Apart from survival & sex, what else is there of any import to our species?

(Though I do have thoughts on that, as inconsequential as they may be. :D)


A little bit of cynicism might be good for you.....lol. If you have been taking any happy pills PM the brand name. You seem to be at peace and have great faith in a dysfunctional world.

I mean that in good humor/respect. Thats not a jab.

[handy]

A little bit of cynicism might be good for you.....lol. If you have been taking any happy pills PM the brand name. You seem to be at peace and have great faith in a dysfunctional world.

I mean that in good humor/respect. Thats not a jab.

It is not this dysfunctional world that I have faith in. :) I'm not religious either by the way.

It's just that once I happened to see the light. :KS After which I've never been the same for more than one reason. One reason is that I know how dumb, ignorant & blind I usually am, & two, I don't know how dumb, ignorant & blind I usually am.

[Cavsfan]

In the US, former Saturday Night Live comedian and now US Senator of Minnesota Al Franken has a petition he is asking people to sign.
He is fighting for "Net Neutrality" as it is a fundamental free speech right.

He is talking about Comcast, the nation's largest cable provider, and NBC/Universal wanting to merge.
These are two more huge companies trying to merge and create a monster!

Read his article on CNN here. (http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/05/franken.net.neutrality/)

And if you want to sign his petition and you live in the US click here. (http://www.alfranken.com/index.php/splash/netneutrality_vid/)

I did. He has over 87,000 signatures so far. I think him going from being a comedian and radio show host for 37 years
and now a US Senator he is doing an excellent job! I guess no one else gives a crap!

[MCVenom]

In the US, former Saturday Night Live comedian and now US Senator of Minnesota Al Franken has a petition he is asking people to sign.
He is fighting for "Net Neutrality" as it is a fundamental free speech right.

He is talking about Comcast, the nation's largest cable provider, and NBC/Universal wanting to merge.
These are two more huge companies trying to merge and create a monster!

Read his article on CNN here. (http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/05/franken.net.neutrality/)

And if you want to sign his petition and you live in the US click here. (http://www.alfranken.com/index.php/splash/netneutrality_vid/)

I did. He has over 87,000 signatures so far. I think him going from being a comedian and radio show host for 37 years
and now a US Senator he is doing an excellent job! I guess no one else gives a crap!
Signed.

[Nick_Jinn]

Signed.

x2

[slooksterpsv]

Oh wow I'm so lost and confused, so if someone can help me out:
What does Net Neutrality mean to me?
How will I benefit from Net Neutrality?
How is this going to affect wireline and wireless consumers?
Would one service have a higher bandwidth over others with this proposal?
Would one be able to block services as they see fit with this proposal?
What in turn would happen to me if this goes into effect? (taxes? connection cost? etc.?)
Is this only for wireless (mobile is a better term) connections?
Is this only used by wireless carriers or is it used by comcast, qwest, etc.?

If you can answer those I can make an informed decision.

[slooksterpsv]

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/facts-about-our-network-neutrality.html - that's much better, gets to the details of the whole thing instead of technical jargon only a lawyer could understand.

I have to say, I want net neutrality on wireless too, it's BS it only covers Wireline, but Wireline is where we need to start then press for it on Wireless. I like this, ISPs should not be able to block content and the internet should be open and free.

[Cavsfan]

Here is a hearing before the FCC that I think happened yesterday. I noticed the FCC chairman speaking.

"The UpTake is streaming the FCC hearing in Minneapolis where Al Franken is speaking out against the Google-Verizon plan to undermine net neutrality and the Comcast/NBC merger."

It's for real and so is Senator Al Franken's opposition to it. You can add your name if you haven't already.

WATCH AL STAND UP FOR NET NEUTRALITY AT FCC HEARING (http://alfranken.com/index.php/splash/netneutrality_uptake)

[ShakaDoodle]

Net neutrality means the way the internet is now. Whenever a megalithic corporation or corporations decides to submit a proposal to the 'nanny state' politicians, who only act in their best interests & not the interests of their constituents, to bring about change in the pretense of acting for the benefit of the poor unsuspecting public, well, I begin to smell something stinky. Believe me, Google & Verizon & all the other corporate interests in the internet are not the same interests as the average user has, despite the shiny, alluring package they wrap it in. There's money to be had in 'dem dare hills' & somebody's gone off on a mining expedition! Unfortunately, it's going to be our pockets & privacy that are going to be ravaged and molested for the sake of profit to the corporate interests & the whole array of taxes that policitians incessantly dream about, not to mention the enticing issue of control, rules & regulations that they thrive on. Something tells me that this whole deal smells & it smells BAD! For the skeptical all I can say is, enjoy the internet for what it is now, because if these guys get their way, you won't be reading comments like this anymore on your computer. Time to wake up & smell what they're really shovelling, before it's too late!

[NCLI]

Net neutrality means the way the internet is now. Whenever a megalithic corporation or corporations decides to submit a proposal to the 'nanny state' politicians, who only act in their best interests & not the interests of their constituents, to bring about change in the pretense of acting for the benefit of the poor unsuspecting public, well, I begin to smell something stinky. Believe me, Google & Verizon & all the other corporate interests in the internet are not the same interests as the average user has, despite the shiny, alluring package they wrap it in. There's money to be had in 'dem dare hills' & somebody's gone off on a mining expedition! Unfortunately, it's going to be our pockets & privacy that are going to be ravaged and molested for the sake of profit to the corporate interests & the whole array of taxes that policitians incessantly dream about, not to mention the enticing issue of control, rules & regulations that they thrive on. Something tells me that this whole deal smells & it smells BAD! For the skeptical all I can say is, enjoy the internet for what it is now, because if these guys get their way, you won't be reading comments like this anymore on your computer. Time to wake up & smell what they're really shovelling, before it's too late!
Actually, it isn't nanny-state politicians who want the corporations to control the internet, it's generally the right-wing parties, the conservatives and the liberals. Most of the left-wing parties want the Internet to remain free, AFAIK.

[Shpongle]

Actually, it isn't nanny-state politicians who want the corporations to control the internet, it's generally the right-wing parties, the conservatives and the liberals. Most of the left-wing parties want the Internet to remain free, AFAIK.

I fear it is a wolf in sheep's clothing , I fear it could be manipulated in the future. heres what the eff had to say http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/08/google-verizon-netneutrality

[Cavsfan]

Net neutrality means the way the internet is now. Whenever a megalithic corporation or corporations decides to submit a proposal to the 'nanny state' politicians, who only act in their best interests & not the interests of their constituents, to bring about change in the pretense of acting for the benefit of the poor unsuspecting public, well, I begin to smell something stinky. Believe me, Google & Verizon & all the other corporate interests in the internet are not the same interests as the average user has, despite the shiny, alluring package they wrap it in. There's money to be had in 'dem dare hills' & somebody's gone off on a mining expedition! Unfortunately, it's going to be our pockets & privacy that are going to be ravaged and molested for the sake of profit to the corporate interests & the whole array of taxes that policitians incessantly dream about, not to mention the enticing issue of control, rules & regulations that they thrive on. Something tells me that this whole deal smells & it smells BAD! For the skeptical all I can say is, enjoy the internet for what it is now, because if these guys get their way, you won't be reading comments like this anymore on your computer. Time to wake up & smell what they're really shovelling, before it's too late!

Wow! How pessimistic of an outlook! And how that sounds so much like the way I think! Amazing!
Al Franken, I believe is out for our best interests; he might be the only one, but you can be assured he is.
He was a comedian and radio show host for 37 years and even I don't think he is corruptible.

[Cavsfan]

Actually, it isn't nanny-state politicians who want the corporations to control the internet, it's generally the right-wing parties, the conservatives and the liberals. Most of the left-wing parties want the Internet to remain free, AFAIK.

So true! :D

Maybe you wrote that wrong - liberals are not right-wing parties..... They are far left-wing, but w/o that part I agree.

[Sin@Sin-Sacrifice]

The stipulation where the legality of web content will determine what is blocked and what is not is at the whim of the corporations. These politicians are funded by the corporations regardless of legality so they sway the decisions by the power of their money. Why do you think, even though he said he WOULD NOT, Obama put Wall St execs in office? You think it was because of their political know how or clout? No... they bought their positions. So they buy the decisions. So they own the government.... which is a corporation bent on profit regardless of who it screws over. People think we need money to survive but you can't eat money. Nor can you eat or shelter yourself with bandwidth. Why things like this are even discussed is beyond insanity.

The internet is a free and open organism that should not be caged or regulated short of any part of it that will lead to the suffering of human kind. I doubt any one of you has suffered from the things you've seen on the internet regardless of how disgusting or weird it was. The source of the problems on the internet are not in the internet. It's the people posting it. That is where the suffering lies. Go to the source of the problem and forget short term remedies at the viewing level.

[Primefalcon]

I don't like anything that allows the carrier to choose what protocols they want to support....

Verizon in this case will want skype and such blocked and with this they'll be able to do it........

RIAA and the MPAA are already trying to get this rollbacked back to the main land lines so they can force ISP's to monitor for infringing traffic....

[Baba-Juju]

Special interest is not public interest! And Google and Verizon is not public interest! Any corporation goal is to increase their profit year by year. Maximize profit and reduce costs and preferably externalize their cost. So if any Manager starts getting ethical and moral they can forget about climbing the corporate ladder. In any company: Loyalty gets rewarded. Don't become dysfunctional to any system is the rule of thumb!

FYI

The FCC just released some statements @ the "The Future of the Internet" Public Hearing, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Statement of Commissioner Copps
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301019A1.pdf
Statement of Commissioner Clyburn
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301051A1.pdf

In summary: both of them say the Google/Verizon deal is not in the publics interest. Please read it yourself and do not let the spinzone and disinformation change your mind! Act NOW!!! A free and open internet is the way forward.

Information on Net neutrality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jHOn0EW8U&feature=player_embedded

You guys in the USA still have a voice and public institution that protect public interests! Make use of them! Write your senators! Make noise!!!

[Cavsfan]

Update on Senator Al Franken's progress fighting this with with FCC. (http://blog.alfranken.com/2010/08/20/color-lines-al-franken-net-neutrality-is-the-free-speech-issue-of-our-time/)