Slashdot Mirror
Google Responds To Net Neutrality Reviews
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Google has written a defense of their joint Net Neutrality proposal with Verizon, responding to criticism like the EFF's recent review. Google presents its arguments as a list of myths and facts, but too many of them look like this one: 'MYTH: This proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless. FACT: It's true that Google previously has advocated for certain openness safeguards to be applied in a similar fashion to what would be applied to wireline services. However, in the spirit of compromise, we have agreed to a proposal that allows this market to remain free from regulation for now, while Congress keeps a watchful eye. Why? First, the wireless market is more competitive than the wireline market, given that consumers typically have more than just two providers to choose from. Second, because wireless networks employ airwaves, rather than wires, and share constrained capacity among many users, these carriers need to manage their networks more actively. Third, network and device openness is now beginning to take off as a significant business model in this space.'"
That FACT looks like a plain confirmation of the alleged MYTH.
Um... what? Wireless is MORE competitive? Do they live in the US? Where did they get this false info?
It looks like their position on enforcing NN over wireless networks is a "wait-and-see" approach since they suspect that we'll see competition growing between networks and platforms that could have the same effect as regulation. While one may disagree with the degree of competition that exists, it's not an entirely unreasonable position.
Fact: Yes we sold out, but we didn't sell that much...
I'm a popular stranger, I'm nobody famous, I'm a famous nobody.
In so many words is "We're doing it, and there's nothing you can do about it... piss off."
I'll give credit to Google for at least responding directly to their detractors and explaining their position in what seems like an honest and open way (you'd think if they were trying to sell us on swampland that they wouldn't use the word "compromise"). In spite of everyone's criticisms I still think Google adheres to the "don't be evil" mantra as well as they possibly can.
That said they should've stuck to their guns. Their new Net Neutrality position sucks.
As a related question, who is responsible for limiting my cable choices? Right now, if I want decent broadband at a relatively fair price, I have just two choices. I can choose the phone company's DSL, or the single cable company's service. Why is there only one cable company allowed in my area, when I had at least two in my previous area (different state, too). Is this the township's fault? The county's fault? The state's fault? How do I find out who to harass, lobby, spam, or beg to be allowed more choices?
If bandwidth is the problem, then why throttle or ban specific types of traffic instead of just throttling the entire connection?
The Google/Verizon proposal still keeps the transparency and disclosure requirements in place for wireless services. This is really the only part that's necessary to make sure I'm buying what I think I'm buying. If no company ever wants to offer a neutral wireless network to play on, then I'll just content myself with my wired connection and just use my phone to make calls.
Is the infrastructure for the wireless services created without any government subsidy, government tax break, government money?
If there is no government money involved in creating the infrastructure for these services, then government cannot force their own vision of contract between the service provider and a customer. So as long as the customer is given a clear description of the service, and the description is real, there is nothing for net neutrality to do there.
What I mean is that most land lines were/are somehow subsidized by government money/regulations/power/tax benefits, whatever, and thus it is possible for government to exert power over the contracts that are sold to customers. But for the sake of an argument if there is a company that laid its own cables, paid all the taxes, didn't get any subsidies, then what is an argument against that company selling a service, that can discriminate against certain web sites, against certain protocols, whatever, as long as it's in the contract?
This is similar to somebody renting an apartment with Internet connection included, but with certain sites/protocols being filtered out.
You can't handle the truth.
Why does Google find it necessary to compromise? They carry pretty heavy clout on their own without having to cave.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
this says it all:
With that in mind, we decided to partner with a major broadband provider on the best policy solution we could devise together.
if they wanted to do this right, they'd partner with MORE than just 1 carrier.
that would, at least, give the appearance of impartiality.
bzzzt. sorry google, but you lost the PR war on this one. we can see thru your agenda, here. had you put together ALL the carriers, that would have been different; but you chose ONE of them.
sorry, but you don't deserve any 'credit' for being, well, just a business with busniness level self-interests and sweetheart deals with 'our select partners'.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
I have to wonder if the founders of google have spent most of the last decade having laughing fits over their motto, which makes a promise through negation of a subjective term.
Do no evil.
What does that even mean? Oh, they're going to thump their chests toward China? (admittedly, that's more than most western governments are willing to do these days, but I digress...)
What about the company's mission statement:
To organize the world's information.
Well, it would be difficult to argue the case that this is, in and of itself, evil, but when you consider what "the world's information" encompases, and what controlling that means, it's hard to think otherwise.
Now, a little more on topic, it's clear that google's amassed an army of lawyers and PR Flacks to rival their army of programmers. Makes me wonder whether their business model / management style is just to ensure they are the employer for all the world's language masters - be it natural or artificial. But, hey - free webmail!
----
Not to be confused with Col.
Usually the cable companies make a deal with the city wherein the cable company lays the wire in exchange for an exclusivity contract (state sponsored monopoly) for a specified time period which the city can extend. Complaining to the city counsel or is your best bet as they usually make these determinations, but don't be surprised when these complaints fall on deaf ears as these contracts usually come with nice amenities for the people who negotiate them (read "free unlimited everything packages for the city counsel.")
-TheDawgLives suckitdown
The main topic of concern is priority access. And in the end it comes down to two things.
1) There will be an incentive to keep bandwidth as it is and offer a premium service to websites willing to pay for more. Not only is blocking content illegal, but it would actually hurt internet providers to offer a lower quality service to their customers.
2) The only reason why websites would pay for a premium service for their content is if there was a noticeable improvement. Which means a noticeable lower quality of service for other websites.
And when it comes to the internet, no one can truly predict the future.
The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments. - Nietzche
Where is the evil?
Most places have a cable franchise agreement. Depending on where you live, this could be done at the town, region, city, or even state level. There's likely a "cable advisory board" or something similar... I served on one when living in Connecticut. If you're a cable customer your bill should include information about that group. If not, maybe just browse your local government website looking for that sort of information.
Be aware, though, that even when you contact them there's probably nothing they can do. Franchise agreements only come up for renewal every so often. If you're still in that area when it's up for renewal you'll have more luck, but that might just mean you'll be dealing with a new provider, not an additional one.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Google has proposed net neutrality legislation that gives the FCC authority to enforce net neutrality, and doesn't change anything with wireless internet other than require transparency. This will certainly be much worse than the existing net neutrality laws, which don't exist. Except for maybe the Comcast court decision.
They must be evil now.
The Google doth protest too much!
Comcast is clearly the best and fastest in my area, but there are others. I had Qwest DSL for a long while, through a local ISP. There's a wireless ISP that requires carrying around a good-sized radio receiver. Dial-up still exists.
Like you say, though, there's just Comcast for me. With Verizon moving out of the wired business, I doubt I'll get FIOS anytime soon.
Fact: Google bought DoubleClick. Another Fact: Since i got this fact, i installed "Open TACO 3.0 with Abine" and with BLOCK ALL TRACKING SITES option. You could not imagine how many sites are using tracking scripts, in some cases i saw about 10 of them. TEN. WTF? So, for me the fact is that Google went EVIL. I don't trust them anymore, and from now on i will question every note, or article, or "fact" that they try to enforce me to take for granted. Or with other words, unless they say that they will respect my privacy, with clear and simple sentence, i will not make myself to believe that they are intending to do it.
First the Communist Party search "compromise", now the carrier traffic shaping "compromise". The road to hell is paved with compromises... Good luck cashing in while you can, Googlies, hustle while you can, get out while the getting is good. You had a good run, about the same as the average young and principled politician, I imagine.
I don't care whether "consumers typically have more than just two providers to choose from". A competitive market means that no single provider can arbitrary manipulate the equilibrium price for a good or service. Wireless service doesn't work that way.
"At the same time, the FCC would be prohibited from imposing regulations on the Internet itself."
That is just corporate double-speak making it sound like the FCC would be doing something onerous if it did that. It's like blaming the teacher on the school grounds who is trying to stop the bully from pummeling the nerd. It's just like Microsoft's double-speak where crap like OOXML is promoted because it gives "choice." It's just like anti-GPL language criticizing the GPL for restricting freedom (because the GPL forces sharing to be permitted).
Google, this year you not only jumped the shark, you ate the whole shark. Between Buzz privacy missteps, your awful privacy-eating revision of Google News, and now this evil proposal, here, have an EVIL mirror, and look in it.
I don't know what the hell has suddenly gone wrong with your company, but you should do some serious soul-searching and now fix it. Mr. Brin, where the hell are you? Google had it all in your hands and now you're losing it. Step in and stop this crap.
that these decisions are being made by google and verizon, and not congress. They don't even pretend this is something that congress is going to have a say in. "...while congress keeps a watchful eye...." Yeah the best watchdog money can buy. "Politico notes that AT&T, Comcast and Verizon outspent nearly every other major tech giant in lobbying during the second quarter, spending a combined 11.3 million" http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/The-Very-Best-Telecom-Laws-Money-Can-Buy-109538
First, the wireless market is more competitive than the wireline market, given that consumers typically have more than just two providers to choose from.
This assumes or implies that there's no collusion between providers, which seems to be wishful thinking at best. The fact that mobile rates in the US are substantially more than in many countries around the world, that subscribers are locked into contracts, that text messaging is *still* not a free or virtually free feature. AT&T effectively more than doubled its data plan prices -- from $30/5GB to $62.50/5GB ($25/4GB) -- and competitors are now "examining their pricing structures" as well. None of these appear to be indicators of a market with healthy competition.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
...these contracts usually come with nice amenities for the people who negotiate them (read "free unlimited everything packages for the city counsel.")
Would this be something that can be fought? Would it be considered corruption, bribery, or some similar offense? If the benefits were for the city as a whole, like free services for the fire/police depts. (not the fire/police personnel), then that would obviously not be a crime.
the wireless market is more competitive than the wireline market, given that consumers typically have more than just two providers to choose from.
Not so where I live. Here in Montana we technically have two choices in wireless but the 'choice' comes down to where you want to have service. Verizon has better service in some rural areas and Altel has better service in other rural areas. For an equal quality connection across the state, you pretty much need to have Verizon. I'm not trying to promote Verizon, just relating my experience with both carriers.
As for competition for wired connections, there is next to none in most of the state. Between 5 and 10 towns will have more than one broadband service provider.
Not everyone in the United States, let alone the world, live in urban areas.
"Whoever loves instruction loves knowledge, But he who hates correction is stupid." Proverbs 12:1 (NKJV)
With wired connections, people can and have argued that we should wait till there's actual abuse. The wireless networks have been far more tightly controlled than the wired networks, with actual tiered pricing schemes, and as Google says, with that limited spectrum, there's that much more incentive to control them -- so it seems like there's already abuse (so forget wait-and-see) and potential for more abuse.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I can't speak for the entire country (in fact I can't even really speak for the area I lived in), but where I lived previously while attending college, Verizon FIOS was making a big push. I went to one of the stupid little kiosk stands in the mall, and asked if my house was available. The Verizon rep told me 'nope', and upon further questioning he told me that Time Warner was basically engaging Verizon in long term law suits in an attempt to prolong any sort of real competition as long as they could.
Now, granted, that was a Verizon rep, so I'm sure he was biased, but it seems to make sense.
The answer to the wireless question fascinates me in the way that only marketing/PR doublespeak can. The first part boils down to "wireless is such limited capacity and high competition that imposing regulations would stall the market", while the second part states that high capacity wireless networks are going to be open anyway, so they don't need regulation. So which is it? And how many sectors of our economy have to collapse/implode before we accept that a combination of oversight/transparency is necessary in all industries?
As any intro Psych student can tell you, competition also increases the stakes of cheating. If Comcast is my only local broadband provider, what incentive do they have to cut a deal with Google? None, they've already got exclusivity. But what prevents Google from teaming with Verizon to offer some "Google Apps by V-CAST" premium service on the wireless side? And of course, Google will throttle back Apps for all other wireless providers, with their limited capacity and all. So thoughtful of them.
For fucks sake, this "Hate shit because it's popular" crap is old.
Yeah, they used a meme (the MYTH vs FACT rebuttal method) that doesn't 100% line up with the way they are presenting their arguments. So the fuck what? Their arguments, whether you agree or disagree with them, are valid presentation of their points.
They aren't pulling shit like BP claiming that reporters weren't being barred from talking to the cleanup workers in the Gulf as said reporters were shooting film of that exact thing happening.
They aren't using political rhetoric to attempt to push their view through without letting anyone bring up objections based on critical thinking.
They are simply presenting the complaints they see as not entirely on target and explaining why they don't see them as valid. HOW THE FUCK IS THAT EVIL?
Did I wake up this morning in Bizzaro land where GWBush has managed to run for a third term and win and we've reduced all discourse down to the equivalent of a sports fan brawl
?
The bottom line is this: Google was only in favor of net neutrality when they thought it would help them compete with the iPhone. Now that they don't think they need it anymore, they're reversing position. People who cheered Google for their initial stance got suckered.
There is always choice. There is the choice to not use a service. If you don't like a provider's policies don't use the provider. Nobody has a "right" to a service provided by someone else... that was made illegal along with slavery. The only thing NN will do is give corporations the ability to lobby the FCC instead of the consumers. Just look at how "fair" and "neutral" our radio and TV is. People seriously want to invite the FCC into the industry? Give me a break. The pleas for NN are mostly paranoia and propaganda - if not plain foolishness. This will be regretted.
Compromises don't work. Like Bill Watterson, ISP/Verizon don't care about our concerns and they have nothing we want in return.
So sod compromise. Especially when the quid-pro-quo is giving us nothing back for our neutrality needs we can use.
I don't understand why common carrier status is not fundamental to this debate. The way I understand it, common carrier status means that a company provides a transportation service to the public and is shielded from liability for the actions of their customers because of the dual facts that the service is essential to modern life and that the company is technically unable to adequately control that customer behavior. That's why airlines aren't liable when terrorists use their planes to destroy skyscrapers.
If major telecoms specifically want to "shape" internet traffic, they are explicitly acknowledging that they are capable and willing (and eager!) to control the actions of their customers. If that is the case, then it becomes legally incumbent upon them to do what they can to stop illegal behavior. What I'm talking about is filesharing: if telecoms are capable of stopping illegal filesharing, then they are legally required to do so, since common carrier status no longer applies to them.
The problem with that reasoning is that it would open the telecoms to gigantic liability, presumably much larger than the extra money they might squeeze out of, say, Google, to make its packets travel faster. And also presumably, the telecoms are run by crafty people with competent lawyers who have thought all this through, and know what they are talking about much better than I do. So, I know my legal reasoning must be wrong, but I don't know where.
Anyone who's watched them get creative and wriggle out of any pro-competition regulation over the years can assess the proposal on general principles.
Any ambiguity, wiggle room, or loophole will get exploited to the hilt.
None of those clauses about additional services or network management are there by accident.
Verizon knows exactly what they're doing, and they like this plan. Detail-oriented people will properly study it in detail, but Verizon's endorsement is enough to tell you what conclusions that study will reach.
Dishonesty is NOT evil. It's bad, yes. Not evil.
IF google had sold out something we already had, THAT would be "evil", but trying to spin your way out of being the bad guy is bad but it ain't evil.
Microsoft saying that Vista is The Best Windows EVAH! is bad because it's bollocks and they know it. However, it isn't *evil*. Their FUD claims against Linux infringing 235 patents (which we won't tell you about in case you stop infringing) ARE evil.
The ISP should only be reading the source and destination IPs of the data and forwarding it along.
To prioritize data based on which IP (read Company) that a packet of data is coming from ISPs need only the routing information.
Google and Verizon have stated that this is not what they are talking about doing. They want to allow priority escalation based on content type.
Normal routing frames do not contain a field denoting content type "I'm a web page" or "I'm video" or "this data is voice".
In order to prioritize based on data type ISPs must perform deep packet inspection.
With HTTP (over TCP/IP) they could read the optional "Content-Type" HTTP header...
(...after skipping past the specific web page URL info? yeah, sure, they'll just ignore that juicy bit.)
This might work with web pages and some types of images and video, but not all traffic and certainly not voice.
The "Content-Type" header is optional, in fact it's quite frequently hard to find without full packet scanning in place.
Thanks to the "Keep Alive" option HTTP frequently avoids making a new connect for each piece of content.
The only way to see that a video has started streaming for sure is to scan the entire content of every packet looking for a video "Content-Type".
Since you're scanning the entire content might as well log some of it and check for a few other key words too, eh?
Most voice over IP (e.g. Skype) is done over UDP, and uses proprietary or encrypted data.
Tell me again how you'll prioritize a packet that is encrypted voice and not encrypted Bittorrent or any other proprietary data format?
(You guessed it: Impossible to do! Encryption is designed to combat Deep Packet Inspection.)
Prioritizing can still be done by only looking at the source and destination IPs though... except with P2P protocols like Bittorrent... or Skype!
Ignoring the fact that it's an impossible and unethical violation of privacy
lets suppose a Deep Packet Inspection approach could prioritize based on data type alone.
This means you're matching certain known patterns of data... It's not like there will ever be any new data formats, right?
Wrong! OK, so when a start up invents a better way to send video or voice or web page traffic (HTTP over BT?) the glorious
filter system will not know to prioritize it. It will be slower than other prioritized content of the same sort of media.
How will it compete with Google or H264 or Skype? A big company can use clout and $$$ to get their data formats prioritized, but what about you or me?
Content production companies will also suffer "vendor lock in" because they would be foolish to use a new
superior video delivery format since it will be slower (unprioritized) than what the big companies provide.
Google, you're not pulling the wool over my eyes, and Verizon, I've known what you were up to from word go.
I wouldn't be surprised if MS, Apple and Adobe all agree with Deep Packet Inspection Anit-Net-Neutral tiering
when they realize it provides vendor lock in potential.
It might look like confirmation of the myth if you read only two of the four paragraphs. The rest of it was:
In our proposal, we agreed that the best first step is for wireless providers to be fully transparent with users about how network traffic is managed to avoid congestion, or prioritized for certain applications and content. Our proposal also asks the Federal government to monitor and report regularly on the state of the wireless broadband market. Importantly, Congress would always have the ability to step in and impose new safeguards on wireless broadband providers to protect consumers' interests.
It's also important to keep in mind that the future of wireless broadband increasingly will be found in the advanced, 4th generation (4G) networks now being constructed. Verizon will begin rolling out its 4G network this fall under openness license conditions that Google helped persuade the FCC to adopt. Clearwire is already providing 4G service in some markets, operating under a unique wholesale/openness business model. So consumers across the country are beginning to experience open Internet wireless platforms, which we hope will be enhanced and encouraged by our transparency proposal.
Let me translate that for you: "Our past efforts have opened a door towards network neutrality on wireless networks. The meaningful competition that remains in wireless service has done the same. We think it reasonable to see where those doors lead before asking Congress to force additional action. This is unlike wireline Internet where the unregulated trend has ended competition and is moving further from network neutrality."
I agree.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
I dunno, I'm usually on Google's side. I really don't understand why people chose to fear them. I mean, I understand they have a HUGE potential for evil. But only slightly more so then Microsoft. And M$ has actually been evil, in moderate amounts. I think part of it is hating them for being successful.
Anyway, even I have to say that some of these rebuttals are kinda weak. There's a lot of compromise on wireless when, go figure, they're coming together with Verizon, whose mostly a wireless (cellular) company. Yeah yeah, FiOS, whatever. So if they ever got, say, Mediacom to come to the table, would they compromise on cable lines too?
Associating with Verizon in any way shape or form is tainting Google. So what if shit isn't progressing? Let it get bad to the point you can implement real fixes. If it doesn't get that bad? Well then what's the problem. But get these half-assed compromises on the books, then it's going to be really hard to fix.
Its time to switch from Google folks. I already did when this story broke.
You have to remember that the New York Times broke the story and then Google said they were in no such talks with Verizon that would end net neutrality. Then a couple days later, Google and Verizon come out with this plan for net neutrality. It just looks like Google and Verizon got caught and they came out in full spin mode.
So which is it Google? First werent in any talks with verizon... then 2 days later you announce a plan with verizon that you just claimed you never talked about with them?
The New York Times was right. Google and Verizon had to spin it as a pro net neutrality proposal because of the public reponse to the New York Times article.
It is time to switch from Google.
Switch to anything but Google. You make up your mind as to whom.... but Google is not our friend. Google is evil.
if they wanted to do this right, they'd partner with MORE than just 1 carrier.
Translation: "we bid on the VHF auction, which we need to reach all the homes, but Verizon bid more and we figured it would cost less to work with them than to outbid them".
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I predict that mobile users will simply tunnel all web traffic to a proxy which is not affected by the mobile provider's throttling. The mobile provider will then be unable to distinguish one kind of traffic from another, since it will all be encrypted and connecting to the same port.
All we need is software on the mobile phone to perform the tunneling (ssh anyone?) Sounds like a business opportunity to me!
Next up: mutated Sea Bass and an Evil Petting Zoo.
Oh, and the reason Eric hasn't been spotted in public for a while is that he's supervising construction of his new Underground Lair.
So we should enact open competitiveness laws at the state and local levels, so any "provider" can apply to get on board with the franchise agreement. This sort of change is needed to break up all localized social-monopolies (meaning government oversight with only one or two service providers). In California its bad, every single utility service has been monopolized by public boards and districts signing agreements with a singular entity for service. The main problem right now has to do with ownership of facilities - if Comcast owns the fiber in the street, how can XYZ ISP get access to it? The only thing I think could work would be a deregulation (I know, sounds backwards) of the services like was done with Long Distance phone carrier services back in the 90s(?). Of course, while that allowed for greater competition in the LD market, the local markets (baby bells) still had their monopolies in tact. And what do we have now? Super baby-bells, so much so that SBC was able to gobble up ma-bell in one fell swoop. The lesson, if you deregulate to encourage competition, it must be done across multiple/all service sectors and not constrained to region, lest you grow a new larger monopoly in the end.
I would also like to point out that most of these issues would not be a problem if the SEC would prevent giant mergers. Things get this way when giant firm A merges/acquires giant firm B. Maybe a simple rule that prevents a top 5 (or 10) firm from merging or acquiring any other firm in the top 5/10/15 of the sector. Anyone think that may help? (I am not opposed to lateral or supply chain acquisitions, but even there I would use a similar rule)
If the US was competitive in the broadband market rather then forced into sponsored monopolies, we would have far more options for providers, better pricing, 100+ Mb lines would be common, and these discussions about lack of available bandwidth would be far less worrisome.
The fault in your logic is in assuming perfect competition is the most economically efficient outcome when in fact the immense capital costs of a telecom network actually tends towards a natural monopoly. There is a reason we rarely have more than one gas/electric/telephone company in a given area and it is almost purely a matter of cost accounting. (disclosure I am an accountant) The costs of building and maintaining such a network are immense and economies of scale matter tremendously. Having enough competitors such that none of them have pricing power can actually makes it MORE expensive to provide telecom service because unless they merge, none of them can achieve minimum efficient scale.
The usual solution is instead to allow a monopoly or oligopoly and to regulate it if the product provided is sufficiently critical (like electricity or telephone service). There is no perfect solution and while competition is a good thing, a competitive marketplace is not always competitive or even desirable in all cases. I agree that ideally more competition would be better but it's not so easy to achieve in a sustainable way in this case. Telecom networks are expensive and redundant networks actually can drive costs (and by extension prices) up.
I think I know the name of Googles next project: Skynet . Please see: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088247/plotsummary
Net neutrality is centralized planning. In this case planning of the internet and trying to make it work better.
Ahh, the presumption that unregulated markets always work things out in the end. Haven't we put this tired argument to rest yet? Yes, too much regulation is bad but that doesn't make no regulation good.
Would this be something that can be fought?
Dude, you can't fight City Hall!
-TheDawgLives suckitdown
Myth: Using the "'Myth' - 'Fact'" format is a good way to make an argument.
Fact: Actually, it is both lame and gay.
It is a good idea to take a look at your city/region's franchise agreement. I just took a look at mine and was happy to discover that it quite clearly states that the Comcast franchise (currently only cable co. in the city) is non-exclusive; any other operator may build-out and operate a system in the city, under a separate franchise agreement, as long as the terms of the two franchise agreements are materially the same.
I guess I can't blame the City for lack of choices in TV service.
For me, and I suspect for most of us, Net Neutrality means that we just want to rent a common carrier, just like the phone line. Imagine if the phone company charged one thing for voice, another for fax and yet another for 1200 baud, 2400 baud and 25K baud modem service. The FCC would have been able to say NO! Well along comes the Internet and Verizon want to limit things like streaming video, Skype calls and what else? I say NO! I want to simply buy bandwidth, nothing else from them. If they have a subsidiary that sells movies, fine I can rent movies but that's got nothing to do with the bandwidth I pay for except use some of it.
I think it's time for Congress to simply say that the FCC has the authority to regulate Internet access just as they regulate telephone access and that like POTS providers, Internet providers are defined as simple common carriers.
SG
It't difficult to see what is going on inside of the Google walls especially if the big brother is involved.
So talks about internet privacy and anonymity is long time passed.
Gothic Fantasy Art