Posted on 08/09/2010 6:32:58 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Google and Verizon have hammered out a joint proposal for the FCC and internet industry in the hopes of ending the roiling network neutrality debate.
It won't.
"Crafting a compromise proposal has not been an easy process, and we have certainly had our differences along the way," wrote Google director of public policy Alan Davidson and Verizon executive vice president of public affairs, policy, and communications Tom Tauke in a joint statement outlining the goals of the "suggested legislative framework."
"But what has kept us moving forward is our mutual interest in a healthy and growing Internet that can continue to be a laboratory for innovation," they continued.
Fine words from Mssrs. Davidson and Tauke, to be sure, but a close look at the proposal uncovers some troubling suggestions.
The two-page seven-point plan offers a bundle of carrots and sticks designed to allay fears of a multi-tiered internet in which some web content is more equal — and more costly — than others. And for today's internet, the proposal has arguable value. For the internet of the future, however, not so much.
To mollify those who object to a multi-tiered internet in which content providers can pay for preferred, prioritized service, Davidson and Tauke note that the proposal includes a "new nondiscrimination principle [that] includes a presumption against prioritization of internet traffic — including paid prioritization."
Plus: "In addition to not blocking or degrading of internet content and applications, wireline broadband providers also could not favor particular Internet traffic over other traffic. "
All well and good to net-neut supporters, as are other aspects of the plan that include a higher degree of service-quality transparency and clarification of the FCC's enforcement powers — including the ability to impose $2m fines on "bad actors".
However, slipped in at the tail end of the proposal's suggested strictures against prioritization is an unexplained escape clause: "Prioritization of internet traffic would be presumed inconsistent with the non-discrimination standard, but the presumption could be rebutted."
The framework doesn't specify what grounds such a rebuttal could claim, or what agency would referee such an argument. Presumably it would be the FCC — but as recent US history has shown, the Commission's choice of whether to prefer business interests or consumer protection is, to put it kindly, malleable.
Notice also that Davidson and Tauke specifically referred to "wireline broadband providers" — and there's a simple reason for that specificity: "We both recognize that wireless broadband is different from the traditional wireline world," they write, "in part because the mobile marketplace is more competitive and changing rapidly.
"In recognition of the still-nascent nature of the wireless broadband marketplace, under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency requirement."
The future is inarguably a wireless one — and although the framework specifies that the US Government Accountability Office should issue an annual report on "whether or not current policies are working to protect consumers", the proposal gives no guidance on how, when, or in what way wireless broadband might ever be included in the wireline guidelines.
Equally — perhaps more — concerning to those who want a flat-internet future is the proposal's clear statement that its "open Internet" strictures would only apply to current technologies and internet useage patterns.
"Our proposal would allow broadband providers to offer additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services (such as Verizon's FIOS TV) offered today," Davidson and Tauke write. Those services would be exempt from the "paid prioritization" prohibition.
No attempt is made in either Davidson and Tauke's explanation or in the proposal itself to outline the scope of "additional, differentiated online services," although a few examples are given. "Health care monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services, or new entertainment and gaming options," apparently.
Examples don't define a range — and one could, of course, drive the proverbial truck through that "entertainment" loophole.
Call us cautious or call us cynical, but The Reg finds itself concerned that what Google and Verizon's proposal actually defines is a future in which carriers could redefine their services as "differentiated", thus removing them from the proposal's oversight.
At minimum, providers could simply focus on the newer, more lucrative, services and let their "open Internet" services die on the vine. The proposal does note that: "The FCC would also monitor the development of these services to make sure they don't interfere with the continued development of Internet access services," but the FCC's willingness to inject itself into regulation, as we mentioned above, correlates highly with the political winds.
As is true with everything these days in the good ol' US of A, it all comes down to politics — and as The Reg noted last week when Google and Verizon denied that a tiered-internet deal was in the works, over four times as much money was spent on lobbying by anti net-neuts versus pro net-neuts. That amount of cash — $19.7m versus $4.7m in the first quarter of 2010 alone — buys plenty of wind. ®
From Google and Verizon, a path to an open Internet
****************************************EXCERPT******************************************
We have spent much of the past year trying to resolve our differences over the thorny issue of "network neutrality." This hasn't been an easy process, and Google and Verizon are neither regulators nor legislators. But as leaders in our respective fields, we have searched for workable public policies that serve consumer interests and create a climate for investment and innovation. What has kept us at the table and moving toward compromise was our mutual interest in a robust Internet and our recognition that progress would occur only when players from across the Internet space work together.
The proposal we outlined Monday as a suggested policy framework for lawmakers translates these principles into a fully enforceable broadband Internet policy. In developing this framework, we were guided by two principles: our commitment to an open Internet, and the need for continued investment in broadband infrastructure, which is critical to U.S. global competitiveness.
First, our policy framework states that consumers should be able to choose any lawful content, services or applications they want; in other words, they can choose whatever Internet service they want, go to whatever legal Web sites they want, and use whatever software or applications they want. Our companies have long supported the FCC's openness principles toward wireline broadband, and we also believe that blocking and degrading Internet traffic is antithetical to the principle of openness and to consumers' expectations.
So will the individual internet license be part of this?
Almost beat you that time.
Just keep the internet the way it is!
That was fast.
I see this as a bit arrogant. Were any other entities involved? Do Google and Verizon control all of the Internet?
I haven’t read it all...but I think they said leave the wired internet as is....but the wireless is different.
I think the big carriers control 80% of the backbone.
I’m a proud cable subscriber (Bright House) and will be investigating options to dump my cell service with Verizon. I’m tired of having our government and those who support it strip away my Liberties and accessibilities in lieu of some fantastic phantasm of “neutrality.”
We all learned VERY young in life that “Life is not fair.” When will society learn and understand that and embrace the race to the top again?
On this one, this issues are complicated.
The extremists on one side actually want free internet to everybody (except conservatives) at unlimited bandwidth.
The extremists on the other side want controls on who gets how much bandwidth, with Verizon favoring Verizon customers on both the upload and the download (in other words, you want a fast web site, rent it from Verizon/ATT.
Small, innovative ISPs and web servers, oh well.
Of course, web servers already pay for specified bandwidth and sometimes don’t get it because even if you give a small web service 5 meg per second, the backbone can cut that down to 10 kbits per second. The ATT router, number four on my traceroute, on sbcglobal dot net at 151 dot 164 dot 55 dot 65 tries to handle all traffic for Eastern Ohio. It can’t. So packets get sent an average 2-30 times on the upstream before crossing that router. And text web pages take an average 30 seconds to 5 minutes to load on a 5 meg up/down service.
And that’s with net neutrality. I don’t want to imagine page load rate for Free Republic when ATT starts playing favorites.
Especially in collusion with the government.
PROTECT OUR FREEDOM PING!!!!
Google and Verizon are simpy selling out the 1st amendment rights of citizens. They mean to combine and establish a monopoly , while seducing government into their plan by offering the executive branch a court unsupervised surveillence of citizens, their homes, their conversations, and other communications. Wave anonimity and tax free purchases good-bye.
And if you think this is just a lot of hooey, ask youself why Google is now researching the purchase of surveillance drones from a German Company by the thousands.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/08/08/2054200/Google-Testing-an-Airborne-Camera-Drone?from=rss
http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2010-08-07-n43.html
http://www.wiwo.de/technik-wissen/zivile-drohnen-fuer-google-437756/
Rural folks will skeet shoot, city dwellers would have no hope.These drones have infra-red capability, they will also come at night.
Your home,its location, private details and customized surveillance ON YOU for Google clients will become available for those to see who are willing to pay for the information, contrary to the 4th amendment and The Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, Google is NOT America’s friend.
America is on the cusp of its citizens having no privacy and a freedom of speech so supervised, that it is not a freedom any longer.Anyone who buys Google and Verizon’s crap needs to have a reindoctrination concerning the Bill of Rights. NO MORE INTRUSION into the freedoms of Americans!!!!!
If Google and Verizon cannot compete, then let them go the way of the dinosaurs.Imagine, by way of analogy,having a phone service which requires a two tiered system, and allows your call to go through immediately only if you have a “VIP” suscription.HORRIBLE!
Imagine purchasing an item in a tax haven without any sales tax, only to find your service interupted and a fine imposed on you before you can reconnect! HORRIBLE!
This is how the left plans to destroy communications between Americans, and also destroy the grass roots political movement which relates truth to all Americans, now that the left and foreignors control the Mass Media. HORRIBLE!
Imagine having security, only if you have paid an exorbitant “encryption fee” and without any guarantee that you will receive notice of government monitoring and wire tapping.HORRIBLE!
HAVE WE NOT YET HAD ENOUGH OF THIS BURDGEONING CULTURE OF LIBERAL FASCISM? HORRIBLE!!!!
PROTEST THIS MOVE. Use only http://www.startpage.com/
as your secure search engine.
And attack these bastards!This is political warfare ( Thank you Obama! One more fascist marker.)
If I saw one of their drones flying overhead it would be a blast to take shots at it with the ol’ .06. Sure wouldn’t want to do that to a gooberment drone though.
A shot gun would sometimes do , but then you are right, an .06 would get the high fliers, pick them off at 700 yards, easy!
I would use the old varmiter .223 AR 15 for ack ack.Maybe I need an IR scope.
On the more practical side one needs to check Google Earth and Google Street now and then to see what they have on you. The last time I looked for my house on GE my side of the road was a total blur. That was satisfying. All the internet map tools had my address on the other side of the street on the other end too.
My 20 is under a good cover of pine and birch, Can’t see a thing even at full Zoom.
No street view yet.But my end drive looks like a logging trail, lol.No address post, nothing. The way I figure it, if someone doesn’t know where I live, they have no business being here.
You sound likeyou have it covered well. The street view innn usually off by a block or so in addresses. Thats why they want the drones.But the gov has every ones GPS location ( not mine), they are off by 500 yards. On the follow up, I kicked them off my property and said,”do not return unless you have a search warrant.”
For now we are even steven. All they know is that 2 people live here. The do not even know my address number.I wouldn’t sign any thing during the 4 times they visited and the 7 phone calls I got , I asked them every time,”Why did you take the GPS location of my home?” None had an answer. Not one. I said , until I get an acceptable answer, then all you get from me is a count.I will not waive my 4th and 5th amendment rights. I will not volunteer personal information on a census run out of the White House in secret.” Thats it.
If they come back, I’ll call the Sheriff.
A woman came to take the census as my form was still sitting in a pile of junk mail. No one answered the door so she left. Came back a few days later as I knew she would. I told her I had already sent it in. (bad TigersEye) I slipped and answered that my Mom owns the house then clammed up after telling her there were just the two of us. She asked another question and I told her I wouldn't give her that. She looked startled and said "OK" as she retreated quickly. I was being very nice. Sent the form in the next day with names and number of occupants only. Last I've heard of it.
Google is evil and anyone that uses anything Google is an idiot! Google’s CEO’s visit the WH more than the union bosses do.
I don’t use Google or Verizon. I stopped using Google when they began covering for the usurper via their searches. I never used Verizon, never will.
Keeping the Internet as-is means supporting net neutrality.
I bet they talk about how to censor the connservative press, radio,videos, and conservatve candidates.
They suck royally. I would love to see them gone.
Missed your ping this morning.
We’ve been using Verizon wireless while away because the wi-fi here is awful. Should I be concerned?
Like MA BELL, they need to be broken up into smaller companies.
Thanks. I know they’re both in BO’s camp. Don’t use google but we’re stuck with verizon for now.
You are correct about breaking Google into smaller companies. I would like to see that action forced as a result of a criminal investigation and a resulting charge against them. Of course, that’s not going to happen under the current regime.
Just the fact that they control what companies you find when searching for a product or that they will sell a search phrase or word to a company like BP and make sure certain web sites don’t come up in the search - these are minor offenses by the search giant compared to what is apparently in the works.
They virtually control access to information. Very unhealthy especially given their lack of impartiality and ethics.
I wonder what fee Google will pay the feds for the GPS information from the census? Maybe quid pro quo - information for information.
By the way, anyone using a home or business wi fi should make sure that cruising Obots or drones from Google can’t acess your network when they get in range.
I will have a wi fi up so thay can access it, it will be attached to a rather significant zapper that I use on clay pigeons.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.