Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EFF Reviews the Verizon-Google Net Neutrality Deal

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the yeah-that's-still-happening dept.

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."

16 of 162 comments (clear)

  1. So, regulation haters... by Pojut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...how's that "let companies police themselves" stance on net neutrality working out for you?

    --
    Living With a Nerd
    1. Re:So, regulation haters... by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "let companies police themselves"

      Almost as well as letting banks and investment companies police themselves.

      Or oil companies policing themselves.

      Or government contractors with automatic weapons police themselves.

      And the deregulated airline industry has done wonders for air travel.

      Government bad, corporate self-regulation good. Just stick to that line and ignore any evidence to the contrary.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    2. Re:So, regulation haters... by ceejayoz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:So, regulation haters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Up until now it has actually worked fairly well. Think about that for a min... There is no regulation right now. In fact I would say some regulation has hindered us such as build out rules and line sharing rules. Which let single providers monopolize huge areas.

      The reason regulation idea has started popping up is because a few have decided the gentleman agreements that have held in the past are no longer helping them. There be gold in dem der hills, they yell. What they do not realize is that the very hills they want to strip mine we are living on and is how they run their business.

      Going forward I think no regulation is not going to work. What the net neutral people want is a codifying of the 'gentleman agreement' that has worked up until now. The problem is some have decided to take advantage of the changes to position themselves better.

      Be careful what you ask for you may just get it. Then 'it' may be worse than what you have now as there are other players in there who want some mega cash thrown their way.

    4. Re:So, regulation haters... by BarryJacobsen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pretty well seeing as I can just switch to someone who isn't Verizon if I don't like it. That's a lot easier than trying to pick a new government.

      Really? I takes you four years to get a new government, and it seems like it'll be a cold day in hell before I can choose between more than the one broadband provider in my area.

      --
      Track your TV Shows with your iPhone - FREE
    5. Re:So, regulation haters... by Kaboom13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Deep packet inspection of large amounts of traffic was not possible until fairly recently. The technology did not exist to allow ISP's to treat traffic differently. The peering agreements between providers were born out of the difficulty of accurately accounting and billing for traffic. It was cheaper for everyone with roughly similar amounts of traffic to agree to pass each others traffic for free then to spend millions on systems to try to figure out who was owed what. The only reason this hasn't been an issue until now is purely technical in nature. Because of the huge investment to enter the market, plus the network effect and economies of scale inherent, plus the corruption of politicians, make the telecom industry a natural oligopoly, if not a natural monopoly. WIthout regulation, they will abuse their customers to the maximum extent possible, because their customers have little if any choice. Choosing an ISP is like choosing between getting in a cage with a hungry lion or a hungry bear, either way the outcome is unpleasant, just in slightly different ways. There is no avoiding it in the current environment, every business in this situation is going to act this way. The only solution is to either artificially break them up into small pieces, or to artificially regulate their behavior. I'm willing to bet the companies involved would prefer the latter to the former.

    6. Re:So, regulation haters... by HeckRuler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We've always had network neutrality. At least to a certain extent. There was peering and a "gentleman's agreement", back when there was more then a handful of gentlemen. Now single providers HAVE ALREADY monopolized huge areas. What you fear has already happened. And guess what? Now that they have power over regions, they're starting to break down the time-honored rules of a neutral internet. And they're doing so to make a buck. Fuck 'em. Regulate them. Or bust them up.

      But seriously people, stop modding up cowards who are probably verizon astroturfers.

    7. Re:So, regulation haters... by chowdahhead · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Net neutrality is not the same as government censorship. In fact, it's sort of the opposite of that--net neutrality at its core is simply the prevention of traffic discrimination. Internet access should simply mean access to the internet, and one's access to content shouldn't depend on the ISP carrying the data. Online anonymity is a different issue and separate from net neutrality, unless we have an Internet Overhaul Bill, which is entirely possible.

    8. Re:So, regulation haters... by HangingChad · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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
  2. Who decides what is "lawful"? by cjonslashdot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And the agreement states that "lawful" content will not be interfered with.

    But who decides what is "lawful"?

    Is this an invitation for the ISPs to take on a police role?

    Is it a way for big telco and the media companies they have merged with to decide that someone's content might be unlawful, because it is politically subversive - only because it questions government policies that the telco and media companies support?

    ISPs should not be in the business of deciding what is lawful content and what is not. I hope the agreement does not presume that they will be in that business. That is a job for the police and the courts. ISPs should only act on legitimate police requests (i.e., those with warrants or some other transparent or traceable due process) and court orders.

    1. Re:Who decides what is "lawful"? by butlerm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. "Lawful" means "not illegal". ISPs have no desire to police what is lawful or not, it just creates more work for them. ISPs do have an obligation not to aid and abet illegal activity if they have actual knowledge of the same.

      This obligation applies primarily to hosting providers. ISPs are not held legally accountable if traffic pertaining to illegal activity traverses their networks, for the same reason that common carriers like telephone companies are not held accountable if two people discuss a bank robbery over the phone.

      "Lawful" arises in the context of net neutrality merely by stating that _end users_ should have the right to engage in lawful communications with anyone they want, without ISPs blocking or purposely degrading communication with some sites in a discriminatory manner (i.e. for economic advantage).

      ISPs (and common carriers in general) are not _required_ to pass traffic generated by illegal activity. They just have no incentive to even attempt to make that determination, especially since if treated like common carriers the may find themselves at the end of a lawsuit if they make that determination incorrectly.

  3. Anyone else? by HeckRuler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anyone else think it's odd that we're reading an article about a group of lawyers commenting about two companies coming together to broker a deal about what the government should be allowed to do?
    Isn't that a little backwards? I mean, I like the EFF. But the idea that we need lawyers to tell us what's good and what's bad seems odd.
    And having two giants acting like they can simply write legislature is balls to the walls wrong. The FCC can do whatever the laws says they can do, Google and Verizon be damned. Who writes those laws? Those that We The People (tm) put in power.

    1. Re:Anyone else? by rajafarian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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!

    2. Re:Anyone else? by esocid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Anyone else think it's odd that we're reading an article about a group of lawyers commenting about two companies coming together to broker a deal about what the government should be allowed to do? Isn't that a little backwards? I mean, I like the EFF. But the idea that we need lawyers to tell us what's good and what's bad seems odd. And having two giants acting like they can simply write legislature is balls to the walls wrong. The FCC can do whatever the laws says they can do, Google and Verizon be damned. Who writes those laws? Those that We The People (tm) put in power.

      I have to admit, I read the stories about the deal. First the NYT one that got it completely wrong, then the Engadget one, then several others that flowed out, and the EFF put it more succinctly than I could have understood. Previously, all I got out of it was, we want industry rules to remain neutral, but VZW wants some wiggle room on wireless/mobile traffic.

      But surely you don't think our legislative bodies are informed enough to write laws/regulation about stuff like this? Imagine if Ted "the tubes" Stevens had been around to have a hand in NN legislation. These two parties are, but of course you have to single out what they say that will directly benefit them (screw consumers over), and see exactly what will benefit consumers.

      --
      Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
    3. Re:Anyone else? by jim_v2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >And having two giants acting like they can simply write legislature is balls to the walls wron

      They didn't write any legislation. They wrote up some suggestions that the FCC and the Congress are free to use or discard. They have every right to do that.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
  4. Re:What nobody seems to understand ... by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Isn't this what people are talking about trying to prevent from happening?

    No. That's not network neutrality.

    If someone wants to setup servers near New York and San Francisco to give those areas better service, that's just great. If they want to pay someone else to setup the server and host it for them, they can do that too. Shipping companies place hubs in busy areas. Supermarkets pay more money for real estate on busy roads. Gas stations try to get intersections. This is all fine.

    Akamai is not an ISP. What we are trying to prevent is ISPs from filtering, delaying, or modifying traffic. Using my supermarket analogy: it's fine for Super Fresh to build a supermarket on a busy road. But it isn't fine if roads have special high-speed lanes for Super Fresh customers. ISPs are in the position of being able to create dedicated lanes on the internet, or to add stop signs that only apply to some people. If you make the roads, you must let all traffic pass equally. If you make telephone wires, you must pass all traffic equally.