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

no exceptions for wireless!

[TheGratefulNet]

this tips their hat. something evil is up, you can be sure of it.

mobile is going to be far more of a growth market (they both are betting, it seems). this is a distraction to be 'good' toward the wired folks but sneak in bad shit for wireless users. creating exception creates the impression (in lawmakers' eyes) that the media matters. it should not matter! we don't want locked-down wireless in any way shape or form!

people, please oppose this!

(and I'm sorry, I don't trust google anymore. if that even needed to be said.)

Re:no exceptions for wireless!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think most people object all that much to application-level traffic shaping. They object to shaping traffic to specific endpoints, espcially when money is exchanged for preferential treatment for certain endpoints. The promise of the Internet has been that any startup can compete with the big boys as long as you had a good idea, talented people, servers to handle the load, and lots of hustle.

Into that list if ingredients, we are now adding deep pockets so that you can buy "enhanced traversal rights," or whatever marketingspeak they ultimately name it, on all major networks. Oh, you think only Verizon will play this game? Every interconnect will want a piece--all the way down to Boingo and your condo association. Imagine contract talks between Verizon and Skype breaking down, so only ATT subscribers can "instant" message. Or vice-versa. Or ATT has "fast" Netflix, but Verizon has "fast" Hulu.

Make no mistake, Verizon wants to either kill MobiTV or have it subsidize vcast. It also wants Google to pay for it's network build-out, so that it can pocket your subscriber fees. You remember those. You know, those monthly fees you *already* pay them in exchange for fast access to YouTube, Hulu, Netflix, Skype....

why the fuck are these people deciding?

[MasterOfUniverse]

forget about whether its evil/not evil, why in the world these two mega corps about public policy? Who the fuck gave them the right to provide a "legislative framework for consideration by lawmakers."?

three bad VAGUE things

[TheGratefulNet]

from the text:

(1) sending and receiving lawful content of their choice;

(2) running lawful applications and using lawful services of their choice; and

(3) connecting their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network or
service, facilitate theft of service, or harm other users of the service

LAWFUL? what the fuck is that all about? now, we have to have layer8, the LAWFUL INSPECTION layer, before we can send the PDU?

this is stoopid. lawful this, legal that. lets just insert a truly literal (cough) policing layer in the IP stuck. sure, why not. its now 'in the spec' (so to speak).

and point 3 is a nice gotcha: if you are using up 'too much' b/w you can be classified as 'doing harm'. if you ping to discover, you could be seen as 'doing harm'.

nice. or, should I say, nice try, assholes.

Interesting proposal; just might work

[davide marney]

Here's the full proposal of the deal. Cringley called it correctly; Google has found a cake-and-eat-it-too compromise: a parallel internet. One internet layer will run more or less openly, with data type prioritization allowed, but no sender prioritization. The other layer can be sender prioritized.

Actually, it's not a bad compromise. The immediate problem I see is how does one keep the Commercial Channel from taking bandwidth away from the Open Channel, so consumers are forced to buy the Commercial Channel just to get decent throughput? If it works like public television does now, with no diminution of the channel capacity or quality, then that would work just fine, I think.

When you're tired of hiring one, become one.

[LostCluster]

Really, with all the Net Neutrality FUD aside, Google's getting fed up with all of the ISPs, so they're threatening to start their own. Google clearly wants to fiber-up some lucky community with dreams of proving it's profitable and allowing them to fiber the whole nation.

Why pay a backbone provider to serve Google/YouTube content when Google has the dark fiber and up/down traffic to be considered a peer by the other ISPs. This isn't a tiered Internet situation, it's simply Google saying they'd rather provide their own line into the major networks rather than paying somebody else to do it for them. Yes, this does mean Google's going to get faster delivery at their own expense, but it's unclogging the backbone exchanges so everything else will go faster too.

Why is anybody opposed to this?

Re:So Verizon and Google now evil over lord

[metageek]

Companies don't think. They have the same rights as citizens and none of their responsibilities. Any "rich" person can tell you that they are really only rich because they passed all their assets to a company that they own. Companies pay a lot less tax, they have no morality, and surely they do not think.

The constitution should be updated to start "We, the corporations, ..."; people are just modern slaves owned by the corporations.

Values Clarification

[SomePoorSchmuck]

*Who owns the network infrastructure and the right to regulate the traffic on that owned infrastructure?

*What is (or what should be) the difference between public space/resources which are finite and tangible, such as City Hall, national parks, street rights-of-way, public roads, rivers, the air, etc., and resources which are practically intangible and theoretically infinite such as Network Access and Storage and Bandwidth?

*Which is the most important principle, private property ownership rights or the Public Good?

*It would appear that the USA is moving towards a belief that people have an individual right to healthcare, to access to healthcare. Do/should people in the USA have an individual right to Internet access?

*What would be the effect of formally declaring the Internet to be a public, communal resource? Would that essentially make the government everyone's single-payer ISP?

*If access/bandwidth are not public resources, what is the reason companies which own backbone infrastructure shouldn't be able to operate that infrastructure in whatever way they see fit?

Re:Lesser of two evils?

[commodore64_love]

>>>I agree it seems hopeless at times.

More like futile. Almost 80% were against the Bush Bailout bill of 2008, and 70% were against Pelosicare of 2009 (according to national polls), but Congress ignored the voice of the people and rammed through those bills anyway. Because of these actions, I've made-up my mind to vote against the incumbent Congressman every chance I get. These people no longer deserve the privilege of service, since they no longer act as representatives.

Unfortunately most people are dumb, and they just vote for whichever name they recognize. It's why the incumbent wins over 90% of the time

Re:Net Neutrality, with conditions

[compro01]

Depends on your definition of "wireless broadband". That could include both cellular networks as well as point-to-point wireless networks, which is probably one of the best methods of extending broadband to rural areas.