Slashdot Mirror
Verizon and Google Offer Up Net Neutrality Truce
When it comes to net neutrality, can we get along? Google and Verizon, antagonists on the question yet partners in Droid, say yes. The two companies have even teamed up to send the FCC ideas on how to handle network management disputes. 'Google/Verizon say that the Internet should function as an "open platform." That means, to them, that "when a person accesses cyberspace, he or she should be able to connect with any other person that he or she wants to—and that other person should be able to receive his or her message," they write. The 'Net should operate as a place where no "central authority" can make rules that prescribe the possible, and where entrepreneurs and network providers are able to "innovate without permission."'"
There's still this problem:
when a person accesses cyberspace, he or she should be able to connect with any other person that he or she wants to—and that other person should be able to receive his or her message,
Yes, but how fast?
A throttled Internet is still not a neutral network.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Really?
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
"That means, to them, that "when a person accesses cyberspace, he or she should be able to connect with any other person that he or she wants to—and that other person should be able to receive his or her message,""
This statement has no meaning if they don't include protocol in it.
Do they mean "he or she should be able to connect with any other person that he or she wants to... by whatever means they choose" or
"he or she should be able to connect with any other person that he or she wants to... as long as they're using only the tools and methods we tell them to"
And as someone else already pointed out, they don't mention speed either. The devil's in the details, after all.
It's an interesting start, but this is what people have come to expect from the internet in the first place. The part I worry about isn't whether there or not people will be able to reach each other. It's how the big networks will change to rules and set up restrictions, yet still convince people that what they are getting is still an 'open internet'.
In other words, they're trying to come up with something that looks open on its face, but on closer inspection keeps all the power in the hands of private interests they can control. They realized their petty squabbling could both both their businesses in jeopardy so they're pretending to get along like a big house on fire now and praying that the FCC finds something else to pick on while they muster their political allies.
It's a tactic designed expressly to weaken the FCC's support in Congress by appearing to be the victims of the FCC "control freaks", while they, the benevolent corporate interests, only want the lowest prices and best services for you, the vulnerable consumer. Cue media relations campaign in 5...4...3...
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Big telecom knows their position is indefensible and that people do not want private corporations to take over the internet. Net Neutrality needs to pass to prevent them from waiting a couple years to try an internet take over again (ie horrible packages like cable tv channels, throttling, and unwanted re-direction of connections).
The way they worded their stance is very worrying. For example, this expression:
The "message" part can be interpreted not as a packet but as any message such as email, IM or blog entry, which could be used to justify that any network traffic that crosses a network can be fiddled by the operators, even dropped, if it was sent through a connection which is communicating through protocols other than the ones officially sanctioned by the operators. So as your download isn't a message, your home-made VoIP service isn't a message or your internet gaming connection isn't a message then they would be free to just drop it as they see fit. To put it in other words, if the operators don't identify your connection traffic as being message exchanges then they can simply do what they wish with it, which, as wee have become used to, will mean that you and I are screwed.
Then, this next excerpt is also important to take notice:
Well, that means nothing more than "and don't fuck with our business". That's terribly worrying because, together with the first stance, this reads as we get to choose what to do with our traffic and no one should ever bother us about it.
So this has the potential of being a horrible, horrible attack on today's free internet. And that is very scarry.
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
"Innovate without permission" is an excellent expression, although not completely descriptive of the goal in this case.
What's sad is that it has to be said at all -- it implies that people need permission before molding technology and science in a way that serves the public good. I shouldn't have to ask someone for permission to learn more about the world around me and put that learning in service of the greater good. And neither should anybody else. Anywhere. Ever.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
so you know, press releases are just words.. They just started doing this a week or so ago.
Seriously irritating that they continue to dub this "network management". I have been in the network management business for over a decade, and not once have I throttled down anyone's network connection. That is a job for network engineers!
robots obey what the children say - TMBG
I noticed that phrase as well, and thought that Google should adopt it as its tagline or motto:
"Google: We Innovate* without permission. *the meaning of the word 'innovate' may change at any time"
It suits their MO perfectly. They choose to "Innovate"(disrupt) certain aspects of the market when it suits them. The "Innovate"(pour money into) projects they see as helpful to their overarching goal. They especially "Innovate"(alter privacy conventions) according to how it best suits them at any point in time. Possibly their best defense against any objection is "it's technically *not* illegal, so piss off". This is all (mostly) fine, I just hate that they do it under the "we're the good guys with the OSS and 'do no evil'" umbrella.
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
Most cell networks have really shitty service, and completely rip you off. SMS prices seem to have gone up over the years, however they are tiny text messages. As network capacity increases they should be even easier to deliver. The fact that people are surfing websites for cheap which use way more data than SMS just shows how the phone companies rip you off. They also have control on their phones, so often any IM apps will charge you for an SMS with every message.
Also once you buy a phone, you are locked into a network. If they screw you over for two years, to leave you will have to pay termination fees, and get a new phone on your new network. You are basically locked in. Some people sell unlocked phones, but they are often locked into one network. Even T-Mobile/ATT use different 3G frequencies. Verizon/Sprint do not use the same hardware either. So cell companies aren't in competition with each other.
With net neutrality 3rd parties can make devices that use all the cell networks (just the 3g parts, not the voice) and use VOIP. Now, Apple smacks down most VOIP apps in the apple store (no doubt at the request of ATT). But even if they didn't, the phone company could probably use deep packet inspection to find other people's VOIP packets an dmake them lower priority. OR just block all VOIP packets except for the phone company's own. IF there is net neutrality then they can't. So you could make 3rd party devices that link to everyone's 3g network and use VOIP. Then carriers would be forced to compete on price, and network quality. Customer service would improve because dissatisfied customers would just leave....
But in defeating net neutrality things can mostly stay the same....
It's seriously important to get a net neutrality arrangement worked out in the US and carved in stone before the neo-conservative elements get back in control. It's a sad fact that the conservative side of politics there has been taken over by a bunch of religious fanatics and fascists who want nothing to do with such traditional conservative values as freedom from the intrusion of government into one's private life. Net neutrality was headed for the scrap heap under the previous administration, and it's far from assured under this one.
It's also an unfortunate fact that the US still has enough financial clout to enforce its rules on other countries. The up-side of this situation is that if the US enacts strong net neutrality legislation, most European countries will happily fall in line, and the ones like England and Italy, which are flirting with harsh internet laws, will have to go along. Even China will have an increasingly-difficult time keeping its "Green Wall" intact.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
...can be cast as 'innovation' (and a good one---it makes life easier for someone, and presumably even better if that someone has a lot of capital) which should not be stifled by a 'central authority' (any authority Google or Verizon doesn't like).
Sometimes corporations do the right thing in their own interest. I think is far more subtler than a business throwing up their hands and giving up, this is a business basically saying "we've always been at war with eastasia. Eurasia is our ally."
First, Verizon is getting it's butt kicked by Comcast and other cable providers for internet service. An article by Consumer reports this month says that Verizon has the superior service and value, but Comcast continues to hold onto the subscribers, particularly since FIOS is not available everywhere and cable just has the mindshare. Anything Verizon can do to make sure Comcast doesn't have a huge lever against them, particularly since they are buying NBC, will be huge.
Second, Verizon is starting to realize that Android has a shot at being a big deal, and not only does that require Google's cooperation, it also requires Android itself. Nexus One and Droid aren't the iPhone ikiller, but Android itself is becoming a challenger, because it's available across multiple platforms and services. Verizon sees this long term, and the secret to being competitive at the moment is getting people to go with the hardware and sell contracts.
Third, AT+T is getting tremendous flak for statements about limiting network usage and blaming iPhone users. Frankly, I think all providers would love to limit phones, but the problem with that is that people like Google don't want limitations. Leave it to Google to give Verizon some religion on the subject, and show them the more you can do with a device, the more people will want it. Anything that makes Verizon look good over AT+T, especially if AT+T self destructs a bit, is obviously great for Verizon.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
When you think about it, wireless speeds are stating to catch up to hard wired connections. Over the next 10-20 years I think we're going to see a shift away from landlines. In terms of net neutrality this should mean there will be numerous companies competing in the wireless network market (AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Sprint). This is good because ultimately users would not stand for gatekeepers that throttle -- therefore competition and user choice is paramount here. What worries me is device lock-in and two year contracts. Google's latest move with the N1 is starting to make a bit more sense now.
meep
You don't.
You do.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
This whole "Google will work it out with ISPs on a case by case basis" is probably the scariest development in net neutrality in a long time. The only reading I can have of it is that Verizon had something that Google wanted, and they said "not until you change your stance on net neutrality". Net neutrality advocates have lost a big partner here.
Perhaps it gets overlooked so much because it's difficult to create a car/road traffic analogy that expresses it.
Not at all.
Suppose the roads were privately owned. Dominos and Pizza Hut offer competing pizza delivery services. You really like Dominos' pizzas better, but Pizza Hut has paid the road owner of your neighbourhood to only let one Dominos delivery through for every 20 Pizza Hut deliveries, so you can't get your delicious pizza.
That'd make you quite unhappy, right? You'd feel unfairly discriminated against just for living in the wrong neighbourhood, right? You'd feel the road company servicing your neighbourhood was not providing the service you expected (despite you paying them), right? Oh, but you could of course always move. To a neighbourhood that has Dominos instead of Pizza Hut, but only lets the shipping company you hate operate. Or...
I think that car analogy was pretty easy and worked pretty well.