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."

Comments

You know what

[Flyerman]

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.

Re:Back in my day...

[dgatwood]

No, back in the day we fought so that nobody would control the Internet. Initially, corporations didn't have enough power to screw things up, so the only people we had to keep from abusing their power was the government. Now, they do, so we have to convince somebody more powerful (the government) to step in and keep them in check. It's about balancing one bad guy against another so that the harm cancels out....

The best reason for net neutrality...

[dpilot]

...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!"?)

Re:The best reason for net neutrality...

[DaDeacon]

I haven't logged in or posted on slash dot in almost two years and your post my very well be the most honest and real argument for true net neutrality. I have worked for big telco and other "real" players in the ISP and networking biz and let me tell you the money is not in the crops but it's in the farm. Bandwidth really isn't an issue it's getting us to pay more to play more, as more people use the net and less people use PBX / phones and what not the telcos just want you to keep paying them $65 a month one way or anther. Cable companies are now in this game as well they have lost monthly reoccurring monies to home dish systems at a rate that no one saw coming. The internet is cash cow everyone wants to milk.

Re:Back in my day...

[betterunixthanunix]

Here we go again.

Net neutrality is not government control of the Internet. It is government regulation of ISPs, in the form of a mandate that they continue to provide neutral access to the Internet. It is an assurance the free and open Internet remains free and open. That is all. Stop spreading the FUD.