Verizon, Google Announce Net Neutrality Proposal

[gm0n3y]

While they've tried to word this as delicately as possible to avoid the inevitable anger they knew this would incite, they're basically saying "Well we left that loophole open, but don't worry we won't abuse it, honest".

I'm not necessarily against this. If they propose it to the FCC, hopefully the FCC's response is something like "Sure this looks great, except that wireless exception bit. We'll just cross that part out, there we go, now we can work with this."

 

[gm0n3y]

I'm also a little concerned about the fifth point. I'm worried that the "differentiated online services" could include things like making a 'social consumer' package for people that only use the internet for social activities such as use social networks, blogs, email, online gaming, shopping (the consumer bit), etc. Then these packages wouldn't fall under the same neutrality as the regular 'internet'.

While I can see some services falling under this (like online TV), I personally think that this could potentially be one giant loophole that just isn't worth it. You want internet TV? Get a regular internet connection (no prioritized traffic) and use the TV provider's box with their custom software connected to your TV. This will also allow users the ability to chose whatever internet provider they want independent of their TV provider. Freedom FTW.

 

[jeraldjunkmail]

I sent this to sballmer@microsoft.com

Dear Mr. Ballmer. I have spotted an opportunity to propel Bing to number one search engine. Google, as I am no doubt you are aware, is planning on releasing it's net neutrality policy with draconian measures to take over the wireless part of the internet vis a vis the ISP's by making wired access net neutral, while limiting wireless access to the masses. This is clearly an opportunity for MS to go the other way, and declare itself a net neutral company. You could run an advertising campaign based on this fact, and propel Bing to number one! Just an idea!

 

[Gin Fushicho]

[citation][nom]hunter315[/nom]How are they figuring wireless is too much different from wired. The internet is the internet, it shouldnt matter if i get it through DSL, fiber optics, or radio waves, i still want all my stuff to get treated equally.[/citation]

Wireless has a LOT less bandwidth, so they would have to throttle it eventually if someone was downloading a lot of data at once.

 

[mikem_90]

I am very concerned that Google put their names on this page, but everyone is going hog wild on Google and not on Verizon? They're the ones who said they're going to go after people for using too much of their unlimited bandwidth!

I do wish I could have seen what the negotiations were, was it a quick instant agreement? or did one side have to concede certain points (wireless control) to get the other to sign?

What if someone wants to implement this? Is this a work in progress? Will corporate lobbyists get a hold of this if a senator proposes this as legislation? What if one side wants to put it in legislation and lobby hard to eliminate the passages that leave Wireless alone? Submarine Legislation?

While a step in the right direction for wired, it still is rather troubling as wireless is improving in leaps and bounds. I do agree though that we NEED to get broadband properly deployed in more areas, and faster at that. A lot of time, the real nice areas that are away from the city have really crappy access to internet if at all. Making sure that more areas have access to higher speed broadband would be really nice.

 

[Enkidu98]

Who is going to run a 'wired' broadband company when this goes through? They'll just claim to be wireless even though their backbone etc is all wired.

Its f-tarded. Until they completely remove ANY wires from the net, its a wired internet. This is all about profiteering and tryuing to dupe the public (and a non tech savvy legislature/government) into helping private corporations benefit more from the public commons.

 

[hellwig]

The fifth statement makes it sound like they will soon partition other services into special networks. E.g. imagine if you had to buy a special XBox Online connectivety package from Verizon to connect your XBox to the XBox live community? Imagine that they created a new Twitter aggregate service you had to buy separately, which would push your twitter updates to a special twitter client, instead of your web browser (also, imagine you give a rats ass about twitter). No more netflix through your web broweser, instead, you have to buy a special netflix home delivery service package.

My point is, currently everything is on the internet, what their statement makes me think is that the want to take a lot of things off the internet. Of course, they'd have to get the buy-in of the producers of the content too, but I woudln't put it past some of these companies.

Comcast and other cable companies already do this with their VOIP services. They were supposed to use regular broadband spectrum to support VOIP, this way, they could argue they weren't a dedicated phone provider, and didn't have to follow the rules imposed on telephone companies. Instead, it was found that some of these companies used a dedicated portion of their spectrum to ensure phone traffic got through. AT&T and others argue this is a dedicated network and thus made them fall under the jurisdiction of the FCC. Long story short, this is exactly what Google and Verizon laid out in their fifth point. Rather than open up the internet, they want to move more stuff away from the internet so they can charge more for it. They are simply redefining what "internet" means, to reduce its scope and get around the language of the FCC sanctions.

 

[Ramar]

Do you people even know what the word Draconian means?

How on earth does "We recognize that wireless networks are different from wireline" equal Draconian measures in any way?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draco_(lawgiver) derpderpderpderpderp.

So let's say that your wireless network in LA isn't quite good enough to allow everyone there to be streaming video at high quality at the same time. Let's also say that improving upon this network would be fairly costly and just can't be done this quarter. Do you throttle video traffic so that everyone is forced to low quality but they're all allowed to watch or say "First come first serve!"?

DEEERP.

 

[chuck_smith]

In my mind it's a step in the right direction. Currently ISP's can pretty much do whatever they want. I know where I am in Canada, bandwidth Caping is a common practice, and internet access is prioritized to higher paying users since the network is saturated. From what I am told, it's just as bad down in the states, so at least having Wired Networks totally Neutral is already a good step forward.

 

[jeraldjunkmail]

The retarded thing about all this is that in Europe, the ISP's all have unlimited bandwidth, and they have no problems supplying it. This is a cash grab, plain and simple. In the Netherlands I have 20mbps for 25 Euro a month. Most people have this. And the ISPs here have no problems at all! North America just needs more competition.

 

[doorspawn]

The wireless bit is bad, but you have to realize that ultimately, like power, competition and the nature of limited supply will put you all on $ per GB plans.

The other bit that I worry about is the differentiated online services.
Basically, I read it as prioritization of streaming TV, educational content and electricity pricing info, which can all come via regular Internet.
They're saying there should be net neutrality except for these products. Big oxymoron.