Google & Verizon's Real Net Neutrality Proposal

langelgjm writes "Announced this afternoon in a joint conference call held by CEOs Eric Schmidt and Ivan Seidenberg, Google and Verizon have released a joint net neutrality proposal in the form of a 'suggested legislative framework for consideration by lawmakers.' This comes on the heels of last week's assertion (and subsequent denial) that Google and Verizon were close to concluding talks that would permit Verizon to prioritize certain content in exchange for pay. A look at the actual text of the framework shows some positive net neutrality principles, but there is also some more curious content: 'Wireless broadband' is singled out for exclusion from most of the agreement, and providers would be permitted to prioritize 'additional online services... distinguishable in scope and purpose.' Public Knowledge, a watchdog group based in Washington, has criticized the agreement for these provisions."

Comments

Re:why the fuck are these people deciding?

[MozeeToby]

This is equivalent to writing your representative and saying "This is how I think this issue should be handled". I'd rather see companies doing this and trying to put forward workable compromises than throwing hundreds of millions of dollars into lobbyists.

Does Google really care?

[DCheesi]

The Register has an interesting piece on Net Neutrality and Google's co-location deals. El Reg posits that Google is trying to eat its cake and have it too: appearing to be the good-guy by supporting Net Neutrality, while knowing that its own private backbone network and ISP server co-location will give it a de-facto advantage regardless:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/09/neutrality_new_net_hypergiants/

Re:why the fuck are these people deciding?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Easy! The Supreme Court.

Look up "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission"

It happened in January 2010 and gave corporations first amendment rights.