Slashdot Mirror
EFF Reviews the Verizon-Google Net Neutrality Deal
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The EFF has written an analysis of the Net Neutrality deal brokered between Verizon and Google. While the EFF agrees with substantial portions of it, such as giving the FCC only enough authority to investigate complaints, rather than giving them a blank check to create regulations, there are a number of troubling issues with the agreement. In particular, they're concerned that what constitutes 'reasonable' network management is in the eye of the beholder and they don't like giving a free pass to anyone who claims they're attempting to block unlawful content, even when doing so in such a way that they interfere with lawful activities. On balance, while there are some good ideas about how to get Net Neutrality with minimal government involvement, there are serious flaws in the agreement that would allow ISPs to interfere with any service they wanted to because there is no algorithm that can correctly determine which numbers are currently illegal."
Limited FCC Jurisdiction — Good
Standard-Setting Bodies — Interesting
Reasonable Network management, Additional Online Services — Troubling
“Lawful” Content and Wireless Exclusions — Fail
One thing that seems good (mostly for content providers, but also consumers) and a few things that could be good for consumers, but still favor ISPs. Sounds like Verizon agreed, "We will let the FCC regulate on a case by case basis, as long as we get broad powers manipulate our other services, and block content we fear is unlawful." The standard setting body is iffy, since as the article points out, these groups tend not to be on the consumers side.
It will be interesting to see where this goes, but personally I am against the idea that they will throttle torrents, or downloads cause "they are consuming too much for it to be legal".
I'm a popular stranger, I'm nobody famous, I'm a famous nobody.
The regulation supports will just blame capitalist interventions into the legislative process when the regulation ends up screwing us all over.
Meanwhile those of us against net neutrality regulation at this time are shaking our heads wondering why so many people want to forever trade their freedom of choice to a bunch of politicians that are sure to meddle with the trust they have placed in them a thousand times over.
"His name was James Damore."
I'm not sure how old you are, young man, but, corporations (through lawyers, of course) have been writing some of our laws for quite some time. For a current example, see the DMCA; for an old example, we can see that Du Pont appears to be responsible for making marijuana illegal in this country.
But I do find it odd that they are now doing it so blatantly, right in front of our eyes!
If Verizon owns the bandwidth lines leading to your community (or to the specific site you're attempting to access), it doesn't matter who your end ISP winds up being.
That is like saying if Verizon owns the telephone lines leading to your community it doesn't matter who your bank ends up being. Telephone companies are legally prohibited from doing things like arbitrarily charging one bank more than another if they want the privilege of receiving incoming calls, let alone listening in on the conversation and charging both parties more if a high value transaction was performed.
The whole net neutrality debate is about extending the non-discrimination rules that apply to common carriers like telephone companies to common carriers like internet access providers. I say "common carrier" advisedly. Unless the law is changed the FCC has ample legal justification to regulate internet access providers as common carriers, under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended.
Loan mortgages to people who can't pay them back, else the US Government will drag you into court and prosecute you.
That's a damn lie. One of those trite, Fox News talking points you repeat over and over with no basis in fact. I had my real estate license during the go-go years and there wasn't any government regulation requiring lenders to give loans to people who couldn't afford it. They were not allowed to red line or discriminate based on zip code, but it didn't matter. They would write anyone with a pulse, no income verification, nothing. It was pure greed coupled with a corrupt industry. Even when I tried to convince my clients to buy something they could afford, there would be a mortgage broker telling them that was bad advice and trying to push one of the gadget mortgages with variable interest rates. These were in affluent, suburban, upper middle class neighborhoods. The areas hardest hit when the market collapsed, not the poor urban areas you're trying to hang.
But way to try and rewrite history. It was the corrupt, inept leadership you supported, so I can see why you're so anxious to find a scapegoat. Even if it's in the rear view mirror. It can't ever be that the people you supported were incompetent, that you were a dupe and voted for stupid people, it's always someone else.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage