dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2010-08-09 14:51:42: Last week was a messy (though entertaining) one on the network neutrality front, with the FCC canceling their largely closed-door meetings with carriers after criticism and reports that Google and Verizon were conducting private neutrality negotiatio.. ..

page: 1 · 2 · 3 · next


Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Greenwood, IN
kudos:2

Great

Big corporations who would love nothing more than to screw consumers out of every penny they have, making the rules by which the FCC will protect said consumers from said corporations.

What a great F&*king idea!
--
Intel Q6600 @3400Mhz/GA-EP35-DS3P/4x 2048Mb G.Skill/WD Raptor 300Gb/3x WD20EADS 2TB/2x PNY GTX 260/Silverstone 850W/Custom water cooler/Antec Twelve-Hundred

qworster

join:2001-11-25
Bryn Mawr, PA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon FiOS

1 recommendation

I pay BIG BUCKS for my Internet!

I pay BIG BUCKS for my Internet, MUCH MORE then people in other countries pay (and they get faster service to boot!). I should be able to do what I want with it-without big companies telling me what I can and can not do. Already they have not only raised rates, but eliminated UUCP and Usenet. They routinely block port 25, making it impossible to use my company's email server.

This crap is like telling me that I can only drive my car to certain stores to shop.

I don't WANT turnpikes on the Internet, thank you very much!


JAAulde
Web Developer
Premium,MVM
join:2001-05-09
Williamsport, MD
kudos:3

1 recommendation

The jury (errr, Karl) is in

Remind me to keep Karl out of my Jury pool should I ever find myself on the wrong end of an accusation.

The NYT accuses Google of 1) conspiring 2) with Verizon to have their traffic prioritized. When the results of said conspiracy are shown, it turns out NYT was correct on item 1, dead wrong on item 2. But that doesn't matter to ol' Karl, not at all. NYT accused them so they must be guilty.
--
My Development Sandbox | LinkedIn Profile


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
reply to Camelot One

Re: Great

said by Camelot One:

FCC will protect said consumers from said corporations.
I never saw where it was the job of the FCC to PROTECT consumers. I saw where it was to regulate telecommunications and to encourage competition, but nothing about protecting consumers.

»fcc.gov/aboutus.html
The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.

educates and informs consumers about telecommunications goods and services

enforces the Communications Act

regulates AM, FM radio and television broadcast stations, as well as cable television and satellite services

oversees cellular and PCS phones, pagers and two-way radios

addresses public safety, homeland security, national security, emergency management and preparedness, disaster management

allocates spectrum for non-Government use and provides expert advice on technical issues
Telecomm Act
»www.fcc.gov/telecom.html
The goal of this new law is to let anyone enter any communications business -- to let any communications business compete in any market against any other.
»www.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.txt
To promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure
lower prices and higher quality services for American
telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of
new telecommunications technologies.

--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC?


N3OGH
Yo Soy Col. "Bat" Guano
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:2

2 recommendations

reply to JAAulde

Re: The jury (errr, Karl) is in

Anymore, sourcing the NYT is about as credible as sourcing Wikipedia......
--
Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power


JAAulde
Web Developer
Premium,MVM
join:2001-05-09
Williamsport, MD
kudos:3
reply to qworster

Re: I pay BIG BUCKS for my Internet!

How is an ISP's decision to discontinue provision of services such as UUCP and Usenet related to Net Neutrality? Are they blocking access to, or throttling traffic to/from, actual UUCP and Usenet providers?
--
My Development Sandbox | LinkedIn Profile


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:42

4 edits
reply to JAAulde

Re: The jury (errr, Karl) is in

There were a significant number of stories last week using this same anonymous source, claiming a Google/Verizon deal was afoot, and that it wouldn't apply to wireless (Bloomberg, The Washington Post, Dave Burstein). The Times was only one outlet. In fact I think Burstein scooped them all.

Google and Verizon deflected these leaks by focusing on one error in one story: The Times claiming there would be paid prioritization or "pay tiers."

Yes, the Times story sucked. It clearly sounded like it was written by someone who either didn't understand what his source was telling him, or just started covering the neutrality debate yesterday (or both).

But by and large the stories were correct. Verizon and Google were working on a neutrality agreement that didn't apply to wireless in order to try and pre-empt tougher rules. Rules being crafted using an ongoing FCC process they both claimed to be dedicated to...

edit to add links....


CableConvert
Premium
join:2003-12-05
Atlanta, GA

1 edit

Do They Think We're Morons???

Come on people. This is laughable! ISP's police themselves. We see how thats worked so far.
The saddest part is that Google is seein' the $$$'s and so thusly they are no friend of the consumer like they used to be...no evil, not hardly


blueeyesm

join:2003-09-05
Waterloo, ON

So...

...how much will these new rules cost the consumer?


jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1
reply to FFH5

Re: Great

said by FFH5:

I never saw where it was the job of the FCC to PROTECT consumers.
The FCC seems to believe it is one of their primary goals. Many of your examples of their roles and responsibilities are related to the fundamental description of "consumer protection", either directly or indirectly.

»reboot.fcc.gov/consumers/taskforce
"The goal of protecting and empowering consumers is among the Commission's most important responsibilities," said Chairman Genachowski at the time.

brookeOB1

join:2010-08-09

1 recommendation

Really?

You're really stretching here, Karl, by maintaining that the news reports last week got things right. The New York Times pretty plainly reported that Google and Verizon had reached a business arrangement about payments for the movement of traffic. That is demonstrably, 100% false.

You can twist the words all you want, but under any common understanding of the term "business arrangement," the New York Times got it wrong.

The entire premise of the reports last week--that a business deal had been reached between Verizon and Google--was wrong. Given that fact, saying that "the majority of the information leaked appears to be true" is just plain dishonest; if I report one week that rotten eggs are delicious, healthy, and a good source of Vitamin C, the majority of the information isn't true if it turns out the following week that I was duped into thinking that oranges are rotten eggs, and, really, it was oranges that I was talking about in the first place.

And then suggesting that the companies are doing something wrong by trying to correct that misinformation--and getting defensive when otherwise smart people such as yourself refuse to see the problem--well, that's just weird.


ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4

1 edit
Brooke, would Google or Verizon happen to be one of your clients?
Edit-Looks like it is Verizon.


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:42

3 edits

1 recommendation

reply to brookeOB1
You're really stretching here, Karl, by maintaining that the news reports last week got things right.
From Bloomberg on Friday:
Verizon Communications Inc. and Google Inc. have struck their own accord on handling Internet traffic, as both participate in talks by U.S. officials on Web policy, two people briefed by the companies said.

The compromise as described would restrict Verizon from selectively slowing Internet content that travels over its wires, but wouldn’t apply such limits to Internet use on mobile phones, according to the people, who spoke yesterday and asked not to be identified before an announcement.
From the Washington Post on Friday:
Google and Verizon have come to an agreement on how network operators can manage Web traffic, according to two sources briefed on their negotiations.

The agreement, expected to be announced within days, comes as the Federal Communications Commission tries to get major Internet content firms and network service providers to strike a deal on disputed points of so-called net neutrality rules. It's unclear how the deal will affect the direction of those discussions.
From Dave Burstein of DSL Prime last Wednesday:
Meanwhile, Verizon and Google are discussing a separate peace that will make the FCC irrelevant.
Hmm.

The NY Times article stunk, and only because it confused managed service prioritization with "paid tiers" and paid prioritization of residential services. The rest of the leaks (which simply stated a deal was coming, and likely wouldn't apply to wireless) were correct. Google and Verizon simply focused on the Times story error as PR deflection to downplay the breadth of the talks and vilify the press. Meanwhile this very clear PR talking point about this "not being a business deal" is strange and irrelevant, given the thrust of the policy arrangement (or whatever you'd like to call it) is clearly focused on keeping neutrality rules away from wireless to protect the Android/Verizon business deal....


en102
Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

''Lawful" ?

said by karl :
Obviously, the term "lawful" is a nod to leaving the door open for ISPs to engage in anti-piracy protections.

Since they referred to 'lawful' in every line, I suspect that VZW/Google lobbyists will be writing 'laws' to their liking.
--
Canada = Hollywood North

gorehound

join:2009-06-19
Portland, ME
reply to Camelot One

Re: Great

i do not have any love for these big corporations.they will screw over the consumer in the end.
the FCC needs to get its act together and protect the people they serve.and those people are consumers whether they are rich or poor.

chimera

join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC
reply to JAAulde

Re: I pay BIG BUCKS for my Internet!

UUCP and Usenet aren't, but blocking port 25 is a violation of net neutrality principles. Albeit a widely accepted one now since at this point you should have an option to use a more secure port to send emails such as 443 or 587 (outlook's SMTP over SSL). That isn't to say that port 25 can't be secured to use TLS and other solid security measures, but it normally isn't.


kingdome74
Let's Go Orange
Premium
join:2002-03-27
Syracuse, NY
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

If You're...

...looking to the FCC, an agency fraught with corruption and petty politics since it's inception, for protection means as a consumer you're already lost. No one, especially the government, is going to protect you from shit. Either you do it yourself and arm yourself with as much information as possible or just open up your bank account and give them your password.

patrickp
Patrick

join:2002-05-03
Bloomington, IL

1 recommendation

reply to ptrowski

Re: Really?

said by ptrowski:

Brooke, would Google or Verizon happen to be one of your clients?
Edit-Looks like it is Verizon.
You very well could be on to something there, BrookeOB1 just joined BBR today 2010-08-09.

Patrick in IL
Frontier DSL 7.1/768


JasonOD

@comcast.net
reply to Camelot One

Re: Great

Spend 20bil or so on depreciating hard assets and then complain.


PToN
Premium
join:2001-10-04
Houston, TX
reply to qworster

Re: I pay BIG BUCKS for my Internet!

I dont know what kind of Business class service does not allow usage of port 25... You probably need to stop using residential services and move to a business class service.

Business class services will not block any ports, as far as i've seen and experienced.


ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
reply to patrickp

Re: Really?

She's a PR specialist, nice telecom experience.
»nms.com/about/our-team/Brooke%20Oberwetter/

Her Twitter has quite a few pro-Verizon posts.
»twitter.com/brookeob1

Here is her site-
»www.brookeoberwetter.com/
--
"So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."

Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org

Madtown
Premium
join:2008-04-26
Madera, CA
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to N3OGH

Re: The jury (errr, Karl) is in

said by N3OGH:

Anymore, sourcing the NYT is about as credible as sourcing Wikipedia......
I trust Wikipedia very much, that where I get most of my information from.

brookeOB1

join:2010-08-09
reply to Karl Bode

Re: Really?

Due respect, but all of those stories strongly suggest--though in admittedly less direct terms than the NYTimes piece--that this is a "deal" in the business sense that binds Verizon and Google together, though the NYTimes was the only one that mentioned paid prioritization.

You seem to be saying that the main substance of those articles was that "a deal was coming, and likely wouldn't apply to wireless." I think, however, that that misses the actual substance. The substance of the major articles was that a *business* deal that would explicitly bind Verizon and Google was coming--and subsequent coverage echoed that impression, which turned out to be wrong.

Bloomberg: "The compromise as described would restrict Verizon from selectively slowing Internet content that travels over its wires, but wouldn’t apply such limits to Internet use on mobile phones."

Cecilia Kang: "Specifically, Google and Verizon's agreement could prevent Verizon from offering some prioritization to the biggest bidders who want better delivery of content on its DSL and fiber networks, according to the sources. [...] And Verizon could offer some managed services -- better quality to some Web sites such as those offering health care services, the sources said. But some analysts speculate that managed services could also include discounted YouTube and other services to FiOs customers at better quality."

Maybe they didn't mean to imply that Verizon and Google would be the only companies affected, but it reads that way to me, and it read that way to many of the bloggers who cited those stories.

All I'm trying to say is that you seem to be unwilling to acknowledge that those articles created a false impression about what was being discussed. I find that unwillingness puzzling.

****

All of that aside, you seem to assume that you know where I'm coming from, but you don't. I don't disagree with any of your analysis about what it means: I think the proposal is an effort by these two companies to mitigate the need for rigid neutrality rules, and it will result in toothless rules that make nobody happy but let everybody save face. And I'm personally not crazy about it.

I don't think making rules from on high works particularly well, whether it's companies making the rules or government. We'll either end up with bad regulation because companies make it themselves and shield themselves from the market repercussions, or we'll get bad regulation because a bloated, inefficient agency makes it, market forces be damned. Between those two evils, I pick the one with less government involvement because I'm a libertarian and that's how I roll; I think it's generally easier to correct bad private action than bad government policies in our legal system.

I like the neutral open Internet, and I personally believe that freer markets are the best way to preserve it without hamstringing innovation. But I don't think a free market solution is on the table though, so hopefully I'll be proven wrong. I'm skeptical though--about as skeptical as you are about the prospects of effective regulation ever getting enacted in the first place.

[And yes, after reading BBR for several years, today I was confused enough to sign up and leave a comment, because I don't understand why he is insisting that the reports last week were essentially right, when it seems very clear to a lot of people that they were all essentially wrong. But I'm not trying to question his motives or have a gotcha-moment--I've been trying to come up with a plausible explanation, and I just can't. Maybe I'm just misreading him, in which case clarification would be welcomed!]

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4

The equivalent of M.M.S. regulating offshore oil drilling

....and we all know just how well that worked out.

While the framework notes that Verizon and Google's plan would give the FCC the power to fine companies up to $2 million for offenses, it then goes to great length to argue that the FCC should have no substantive power of any kind over broadband ISPs, with offenses instead overseen by what will ultimately be the industry itself:
The FCC would enforce the consumer protection and nondiscrimination requirements through case-by-case adjudication, but would have no rule making authority with respect to those provisions. Parties would be encouraged to use non- governmental dispute resolution processes established by independent, widely recognized Internet community governance initiatives, and the FCC would be directed to give appropriate deference to decisions or advisory opinions of such groups.
Parties would be encouraged to use non- governmental dispute resolution processes established by independent, widely recognized Internet community governance initiatives, and the FCC would be directed to give appropriate deference to decisions or advisory opinions of such groups.
-Verizon and Google's neutrality framework


In other words, the FCC would act as a show pony, whose authority in issues of enforcement would be superseded by groups created and run by the telecom industry.

innoman
-
Premium
join:2002-05-07
Dallas, TX
kudos:1

"an messy"

That's about as far as I got...

cajun4x4

join:2000-10-02
Rayne, LA

Government does it

And you expect the government to regulate back room deals when they (Congress) strike deals all the time. Leave capitalism alone and go somewhere else if you don't like the antics of Google or Verizon. You do have the freedom.


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:42

4 edits

1 recommendation

reply to brookeOB1

Re: Really?

You seem to be saying that the main substance of those articles was that "a deal was coming, and likely wouldn't apply to wireless." I think, however, that that misses the actual substance.
No, it doesn't. Your point (which I can only assume is Verizon's point, since you're operating as a paid PR agent with Verizon Communications as a client, yes?) is that the news media was wrong. Most of them weren't. Most of them simply reported that Verizon and Google were in talks on a network neutrality framework that excluded wireless and existed (to a large degree) outside of the FCC negotiations process that involved other -- albeit limited -- participants.
Maybe they didn't mean to imply that Verizon and Google would be the only companies affected, but it reads that way to me, and it read that way to many of the bloggers who cited those stories.
This is a deal negotiated solely by Verizon and Google, I think people can draw their own conclusions here.
All I'm trying to say is that you seem to be unwilling to acknowledge that those articles created a false impression about what was being discussed. I find that unwillingness puzzling.
I think you underestimate the intelligence of the public. I think most PR people do, given they spend so much time having to consider the lowest common denominator in crafting messages. The goal of this proposal if fairly clear, to any objective, fairly smart person who considers Verizon and Google's Android relationship and then makes the (deeply mathematical) observation that this proposal fails to cover wireless.

Let's say theoretically that I had several sources today tell me the leak itself originated from Verizon. Would this same intense scrutiny of the media still apply? Or would that scrutiny (theoretically, of course) be driven by the fact the news outlets didn't parrot Verizon's perspective precisely as they were told to? Again, theoretically speaking.


asdfdfdfdfdf

@1dial.com

It doesn't sound as horrible as it could have been...

Perhaps it could be the basis for something going forward.

It all still seems very vague but, rather than vague attacks on it, we should try to pin down specifics.

Many people are reporting "never any net neutrality applied to wireless".
That may not be the case.

»googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/···net.html

"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."

That doesn't sound like a permanently different state for wireless. Perhaps there could be a temporary exception until wireless networks evolve. Right now wireless really isn't a substitute for wireline broadband anyway.

It also looks like there could be room to work meaningful rules around the "differentiated services".
Our proposal also includes safeguards to ensure that such online services must be distinguishable from traditional broadband Internet access services and are not designed to circumvent the rules.
If it worked the way cable tv services and cable broadband work as distinct services today that could be acceptable. The goal, after all, isn't to force all future services to be internet services but simply to make sure that open internet access services are not subverted by the incumbents.

The enforcement area could be the most problematic and requires great care since, without enforcement, the rest of it won't mean much anyway.

Getting commitment from an incumbent on discrimination seems like a pretty significant step. :

"Second, we agree that in addition to these existing principles there should be a new, enforceable prohibition against discriminatory practices. This means that for the first time, wireline broadband providers would not be able to discriminate against or prioritize lawful Internet content, applications or services in a way that causes harm to users or competition."


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:42

1 edit
reply to innoman

Re: "an messy"

typo fixed, thank you.


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:42
reply to asdfdfdfdfdf

Re: It doesn't sound as horrible as it could have been...

That doesn't sound like a permanently different state for wireless. Perhaps there could be a temporary exception until wireless networks evolve.
That sounds desperate and frankly a little naive.
Right now wireless really isn't a substitute for wireline broadband anyway.
Verizon's about four months away from launching a wireless broadband version that not only is faster than their DSL service, but offers comparable latency. What?
Getting commitment from an incumbent on discrimination seems like a pretty significant step.
What commitment? All managed services are pretty much excluded as is wireless, so the only thing this would really stop is an all-but total blockade of say VoIP services -- which no company could get away with anyway. Minor offenses would be overseen by an industry-created self-regulatory mechanism, which history has shown is about as useless as a lemur with a Kindle.
It all still seems very vague but, rather than vague attacks on it, we should try to pin down specifics.
Here's a specific: the framework is junk.