Slashdot Mirror
Democrats Pan Google-Verizon Net Neutrality Proposal
GovTechGuy writes "Four House Democrats wrote to the Federal Communications Commission, urging them to write strict net neutrality rules and reject the framework put forward by Google and Verizon. The lawmakers, including Rep. Anna Eshoo, who represents the district containing Google HQ, said the Google-Verizon proposal increases the pressure on the FCC to come up with actual net neutrality rules, and characterize the deal as harmful to consumers and beneficial for the corporations. In particular, the letter took issue with two pieces of the Verizon-Google proposal: exemptions for managed services and wireless services from strict net-neutrality rules."
We don't like what they proposed but not only can we not make our own proposal, we can't find anybody else's to latch on to. Think up something that doesn't piss us off!
I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
They're finally realizing that you can't let corporations have their way with the internet? Hopefully, this leads to a reversal that grants the FCC the proper powers to uphold these rules should they actually make the climb.
Palms will be greased.
Regulators who regulate the regulations before the regulation is a regulation?
If it moves, regulate it.
If it moves again, tax it.
If it still moves fire the board, fail the bank, then tax it again.
From the way I see it, if these politicians actually had the will to put their foot down on net neutrality then Google wouldn't even have to compromise and cut deals.
But what do I know.
I remember back in my day we fought tooth and nail to keep the government _away_ from controlling the Internet. Now apparently it's fashionable to want them controlling it, but only for "good" purposes. I'm sure they'll keep their hands off except to ensure the evil corporations don't screw the noble consumer over, though. Government's pretty good at that kind of thing. Incorruptible and efficient beyond reproach, that's what the government is.
said the Google-Verizon proposal increases the pressure on the FCC to come up with actual net neutrality rules, and characterize the deal as harmful to consumers and beneficial for the corporations.
"We think this is bad because it will force us to do work."
"We think this is bad because it will force consumers to pay money for something."
"We think this is bad because it means that corporations will make money."
Are you kidding me? Who is this lady and why is she not on a plane to Alaska?
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
The lack of neutrality for managed services is going to put an increased burden on IT companies. It will increase the costs where cloud services are already being proven to NOT lower costs.
The fact of the matter is that True Net Neutrality is beneficial to every company EXCEPT ISPs. ISPs being a set than includes broadband, T1, DSL and any provider as well as the increasing role mobile providers take. Basically a set of companies that receive quite a bit in government money ALREADY to fund construction of network infrastructure.
It isn't wrong. They wrote a fucking letter that says we don't like what Verizon and Google have proposed. It doesn't have any proposal of what the FCC policy should be. Just that Google and Verizon's shouldn't be adopted.
The closest they get is saying what concepts should be central in the policy that is adopted.
Since this is slashdot, we can make this a car analogy. Google and Verizon have designed and built a vehicle. They have presented it and it could be sent to the manufacturing line. These democrats have said "don't build it!" and instead are proposing that the factory make cars that have 4 tires, a steering wheel, some seats, and an engine. 4 cylinder? *shrug!* Comfy seats? Eh, if you like.
It would be one thing for a private organization to protest the Google/Verizon proposal. But these people are in the practice of legislation. If they object, why haven't they and their staff managed to come up with a proposal of their own? Its only been, you know, years.
I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
...doesn't exist yet.
When the internet first started...
There was no "cloud".
There was no streaming video.
There was no bittorrent.
There were no VPNs, no work-at-home over the net.
There wasn't even a web - though that came fairly quickly.
The internet was conceived as an open-ended transport mechanism, with no plans or constraints as to the data being transported, though there were some thoughts about QOS, recognizing that some data had to get there quickly, some reliably, some not particularly either.
Commercial deployments of anything, not just the internet, generally aren't open-ended. They tend to plan things, up-front, and put just as much thought into billing as they do into the rest of the job. (Ever see how much cell phone plumbing is dedicated to billing, as opposed to merely shuttling customers' data?)
The best reason for net neutrality is something we haven't done yet, something no company has planned for, and very likely something that would be hindered by default, because it doesn't fit into current plans. (Or can you say, "disruption not desired!"?)
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
No, the Congress is too chickenshit to do their job, and want the FCC to do it instead. They know that no matter what is implemented, it's going to be absolute shit. If the FCC does it, then no congresscritters can be blamed, and they can just say "hey, we had nothing to do with it. Talk to the FCC".
Trouble is, it isn't the FCC's job. If the Congress wants Net Neutrality so bad, they are gonna have to get off their collective asses and write legislation. However, they know that it's going to lead to increased prices, decreased availability, and decreased access, and they don't want to get called out on it come election day.
Im the AC to which you are responding, and I still don't think you get it. Let. Me. Spell. It. Out.
It isn't wrong.
Yes it is. No where in the article does it say that Google/Verizon laid out the specifics. No where in the article does it say that the G/V plan forces the FCC to do anything. In fact, it is the Democrats that are the ones urging the FCC to take action.
It doesn't have any proposal of what the FCC policy should be.
Well, they reference this: http://www.broadband.gov/the-third-way-narrowly-tailored-broadband-framework-chairman-julius-genachowski.html
The closest they get is saying what concepts should be central in the policy that is adopted.
My impression is that is as close as the google/verizon proposal gets also. It IS a discussion about the framework, not the specifics.
The real argument, AFAICT, is about whether the wireless spectrum should be regulated by the FCC or not. So if there is a video service on your cell phone, should the data transfer for that video be network neutral? G/V are saying no, and the Dems are saying yes.
your car analogy is wrong in so many ways.
legislation affects everyone and should be thought out properly.
your choice of car affects only you (for the most part).
your analogy would be better if you changed cars to roads.
google (delivery company) and verizon (freeway road maker) have come up with a scheme to govern how all automobiles drive on all roads, and want legislation passed to make everyone follow it.
verizon wants to put tolls on all but one lane on the freeway, forcing anyone who doesn't pay through the nose to use the slow lane.
google doesn't care how cars drive on freeways because google has car depots in every town and google services are only offered to the local population. google cars rarely have to travel over the freeways. google makes so much profit locally that it can easily afford to send a few small cars on the fast lane when it needs to - and because it's got its local depots, most of it's international traffic can go over the slow lane anyway. google is quite happy if all its competitors are forced to pay huge tolls to send data at reasonable speeds or even to just NOT have their data penalised.
and enlightened You thinks that the US government should just blindly adopt their proposal and enact legislation in favour of these two parties instead of producing real legislation designed to benefit society instead of benefiting incumbent corporations.
It doesn't have to say in the article. We've already seen the framework proposal from Google/Verizon. So have they, or they wouldn't be bitching and moaning. And it is immaterial that Google/Verizon are not forcing the FCC to do anything. I didn't assume, say, or otherwise imply that they were. The Democrats are urging the FCC to take action. So are Google, Verizon, and other groups with political or philosophical interests in the matter.
Which is, interestingly, the FCC Chariman's proposal. Not a congressional one. And literally, cannot be implemented. Because it cherrypicks which parts of the Telecomm act to apply to broadband providers. So, I will retract one part of my original post. They did have someone else's proposal to latch on to. Although it seems rather useless to suggest an alternative proposal that can't be used because Congress has to change the law.. Also, the Google/Verizon framework is specific enough that the FCC could make a ruling on a case with it. The FCC Chairman's is legally impossible.
Google and Verizon, at least, believe that their framework can be partially implemented under FCC authority now. I don't know if they're right about that. That would require more legal ability than I possess. But I know the issue has been around for years and gone nowhere. I stand by the "we don't like it, we have no ideas of our own, do something that doesn't piss us off" bits of my original translation.
Personally, I think the Google/Verizon solution is .. pragmatic. Thats about all I can say about it. The FCC chair's is currently dead, legally. On the other hand, the solution I would prefer is wildly idealistic and as such won't happen, ever.
I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
I don't quite understand why a legislation on Net Neutrality would "lead to increased prices, decreased availability, and decreased access".
Right now, the market is solely in the hands of big corporations whose sole purpose is to maximize profit by:
- charging at the highest rate
- investing the less possible
In theory that works well for the customers in an opened market with enough competitors. But that's not what we are experiencing here.
I like the analogy of roads, infrastructure, and cars, content. Try to imagine what it would be if these were build by the private sector without any kind of regulation.
I don't quite understand why a legislation on Net Neutrality would "lead to increased prices, decreased availability, and decreased access".
I don't understand it, either. When they actually have a bill that contains *only* network neutrality (rules on fair practices regarding routing, throttling, etc) then we may know if it would. However, the legislation proposed so far is huge, and the actual "network neutrality" portions are but a small part. Maybe it's the many hundreds of pages of proposed law that have very little, if any, bearing on actual network operation that they are concerned with?
What's even worse with so much legislation in the last few decades (and a trend that seems to be accelerating) is that Congress (no matter the party in power) often write laws that simply grant (or create) some government department populated with unelected bureaucrats broad powers to create rules & regulations with the force of law (basically doing the job of Congress without having elections as a check).
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Of course you don't get it. These robber baron wannabes are just spouting mindlessly spouting Rand-isms.
The market is already stagnant and dominated by entrenched natural monopolies. Our prices and service levels are the laughing stock of the planet.
Not much damage can be done by telling monopolies to play nice.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
If you let them, they'll take away a few more of those pesky freedoms or yours, and then have the gall to send you a non-contestable tax bill for their trouble. Wait, so you are arguing that I should have the freedom to have throttled Internet but not the freedom to have the ability to choose unfiltered open Internet? What freedom do I lose when the government-created monopolies are prevented from abusing their monopolies to screw their customers?
You do not understand the insights of the modern (anti-conservative) right wing and their Tea Party intellectual shock troops. Government is always evil in everything it does and private corporations never do wrong. This revelation frees you from needing to study such boring and old fashioned things as "facts" or "evidence" or to engage in elitist "rational thought".
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Quite honestly, I'm beginning to believe the longer before any sort of legislation on Net Neutrality is passed, the better. It's going to be a real mess once the ignorant Congress and the predatory corporations involved are done with it all.