dslreports logo
 story category
Verizon, Google Announce Their Net Neutrality Solution
A gutted FCC overseeing weak rules that don't apply to wireless

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 negotiations. While there was a lot of random interpretation of what the Verizon/Google talks mean, we noted on Friday that the goal of the talks were to to pre-empt tougher consumer protections with voluntary measures that likely wouldn't do much of anything (Verizon's usual tactic in DC).

Click for full size
Google and Verizon spent last week engaged in damage control, Verizon insisting that their closed-door meetings with Google were about "openness," then insisting no real arrangement had been made. Google in turn denied they'd struck any paid prioritization deal and reiterated a vague commitment to an open Internet, but didn't really deny that a private deal was struck.

Today the two companies held a joint press conference to announce that yes, they had come to an arrangement. Both Google and Verizon CEOs and top lobbyists attended the call, and after calling all of last week's press coverage "erroneous," the companies directed call attendee attention to this framework, which the companies hope can be used as either the cornerstone of voluntary principles, or the basis of new law. The framework pledges to protect consumers' rights to:

quote:
(1) send and receive lawful content of their choice;

(2) run lawful applications and use lawful services of their choice; and

(3) connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network or service, facilitate theft of service, or harm other users of the service.


The restrictions so far seem just as nebulous as the vague FCC principles that brought us to this point. Obviously, the term "lawful" is a nod to leaving the door open for ISPs to engage in anti-piracy protections. Google meanwhile continues to insist they will not pay for prioritization of services (like YouTube) over the Verizon network. Sort of. As Google notes at their policy blog, a massive, vague door is being left open to profitable specialized relationships that extend beyond general Internet traffic (smart grid and health care services are used as examples).

Nothing said today changes the fact that this policy framework is very much focused on creating a weak, self-regulatory policy system filled with loopholes instead of real neutrality consumer protections. 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:

quote:
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. If you're new to telecom, "independent, widely recognized Internet community governance initiatives" is code for faux-regulatory agencies created by AT&T, Verizon and their massive lobbyist coalitions of hijacked political groups, paid policy mouthpieces and fake consumer advocates.

Meanwhile, both CEOs seemed combative with the press, several times all-but-stating that last week's reports were largely fabricated -- despite the fact that the majority of the information leaked appears to be true. Both companies also for some reason felt it necessary to repeatedly insist that this was not a "business arrangement," despite the fact this is very clearly a business arrangement aimed at protecting the -- wait for it -- Google Android Verizon business arrangement.

How? Because as the "erroneous" press correctly noted last week, none of these proposed rules would apply to wireless services due to "unique technical and operational characteristics." This comes as Verizon prepares to launch faster LTE wireless broadband services that will finally begin to put wireless in the role of competing with terrestrial broadband (Verizon's goal in rural markets). Stop here and think carefully about who might have leaked the details of this upcoming arrangement, why, and why exactly Verizon is so very upset about how the media interpreted that information.

The devil will be in the details (something Verizon lawyers excel at), so this framework could get even worse -- assuming it's even used. Still, there's a certain arrogance here that's notable as news. The idea that Google and Verizon think nobody will notice they've proposed a network neutrality solution that excludes wireless while nuzzling their multi-billion-dollar Android partnership seems almost obnoxiously cocky. Arrogance is par for the course for Verizon, but assuming your audience is comprised of complete morons seems like new territory for Google.

It seems like common sense that telecom regulators, not the sector's wealthiest players, should be dictating the beat of this particular policy drum. The fact that this isn't the case speaks to the FCC's murky leadership over the past year. The framework used to create any Internet policy rules shouldn't be a game of policy make believe focused on protecting the revenues of the wealthiest constituents -- it should be the brain trust of a broad collective, including consumers, smaller carriers, and truly independent experts.
view:
topics flat nest 

Camelot One
MVM
join:2001-11-21
Bloomington, IN

Camelot One

MVM

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!

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

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.

jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA

jmn1207

Premium Member

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 ··· askforce
"The goal of protecting and empowering consumers is among the Commission's most important responsibilities," said Chairman Genachowski at the time.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: Great

Yes, someone might want to tell the recently created consumer protection division within the FCC (run by the former editor of Consumer Reports) they don't actually (and/or shouldn't) exist. I'm sure they'll enjoy that.

DavePR
join:2008-06-04
Canyon Country, CA

DavePR to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

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

.
Some things are a given. All federal agencies should protect us consumers from greedy destructive business practices.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: Great

said by DavePR:

Some things are a given. All federal agencies should protect us consumers from greedy destructive business practices.
You are operating under a common mis-perception of the Federal Gov't - that they are here to protect us. Run by current day politicians, the Federal Gov't is here to exploit the citizens of the US.

And another thing that bugs me is the idea that we need to be protected as if we are all children. That is another huge failing of society today - a society turning in to a bunch of children needing protection.

DavePR
join:2008-06-04
Canyon Country, CA

DavePR

Member

Re: Great

"Protect us" in the same sense as the military protects us against foreign aggressors. We need all the help we can get. You and I are the government. We need to be more responsible. We do not need to surrender to the oligarchs.

jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA

jmn1207

Premium Member

Re: Great

It seems to me like the oligrachs are the government now.
gorehound
join:2009-06-19
Portland, ME

gorehound to Camelot One

Member

to Camelot One
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.

JasonOD
@comcast.net

JasonOD to Camelot One

Anon

to Camelot One
Spend 20bil or so on depreciating hard assets and then complain.
viperlmw
Premium Member
join:2005-01-25

viperlmw

Premium Member

Re: Great

said by JasonOD :

Spend 20bil or so on depreciating hard assets and then complain.
Hey, if you can't afford to be in business, then you have no business being in business.
qworster
join:2001-11-25
Bryn Mawr, PA

1 recommendation

qworster

Member

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
MVM
join:2001-05-09
Frederick, MD

JAAulde

MVM

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?
chimera4
join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC

chimera4

Member

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.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

Re: I pay BIG BUCKS for my Internet!

what is this Net Neutrality principles you speak of? I've never seen anywhere that says an ISP can not block Port 25. In fact most block incoming on port 80 as well.

Maybe the Company should change their outgoing mail server to something else?

JAAulde
Web Developer
MVM
join:2001-05-09
Frederick, MD
ARRIS SB6141
Ubiquiti EdgeRouter Lite
Ubiquiti UniFi AP

JAAulde to chimera4

MVM

to chimera4
said by chimera4:

UUCP and Usenet aren't, but blocking port 25 is a violation of net neutrality principles.
Which might be why I didn't include port 25 blocking or discussion thereof in my comment...

PToN
Premium Member
join:2001-10-04
Houston, TX

PToN to qworster

Premium Member

to qworster
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.

JAAulde
Web Developer
MVM
join:2001-05-09
Frederick, MD
ARRIS SB6141
Ubiquiti EdgeRouter Lite
Ubiquiti UniFi AP

1 recommendation

JAAulde

MVM

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.

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

2 recommendations

N3OGH

Premium Member

Re: The jury (errr, Karl) is in

Anymore, sourcing the NYT is about as credible as sourcing Wikipedia......
Madtown
Premium Member
join:2008-04-26
93637-2905

Madtown

Premium Member

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.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

Re: The jury (errr, Karl) is in

and that is a problem with Wikipedia. why trust a website where anyone can go in and post any information they see fit? I can go in there and change anything i want to say anything and you'd believe it?



That is why Wiki is not a citable source in schools.
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin

Member

Re: The jury (errr, Karl) is in

said by hottboiinnc4:

and that is a problem with Wikipedia. why trust a website where anyone can go in and post any information they see fit? I can go in there and change anything i want to say anything and you'd believe it?



That is why Wiki is not a citable source in schools.
Have you ever tried to do that before? Why do some research when you can just demonstrate your personal ignorance?

If you try to change things arbitrarily, no matter how obscure, your changes will be flagged for review and they will be changed back. If you persist with your vandalism you will get a warning, and a failure to stop will result in a ban. A study published in Nature demonstrated Wikipedia is just about as accurate as encyclopedia Britannica.

But don't let facts get in the way of your narrow-mindedness. It's par for the course with us Clevelanders.
ZachAttack3
join:2009-05-30
Yorba Linda, CA

1 recommendation

ZachAttack3

Member

Re: The jury (errr, Karl) is in

Use Wikipedia as your source for anything meaningful, and you'll get shot down. Wikipedia is good to find sources, but Wikipedia as a Source is a non-starter if you wanna get taken seriously by anyone...
gridlocked
join:2009-08-21
Bristol, RI

gridlocked

Member

Re: The jury (errr, Karl) is in

I always thought it was a good way to get started because its crowd sourced so you can change incorrect info and it does usually have a lot of citations but I agree its nothing to cite directly for reseach.
said by ZachAttack3:

Use Wikipedia as your source for anything meaningful, and you'll get shot down. Wikipedia is good to find sources, but Wikipedia as a Source is a non-starter if you wanna get taken seriously by anyone...
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4 to sonicmerlin

Member

to sonicmerlin
lol narrow-mindedness? LMAO! A "study" yah a study. If so much is accurate then why is there so much miss information on there then.

For example it used to say LF Ventures is based in GA; when if fact LF Ventures is based in Mooresville NC. Then it was changed to Charlotte. which was still wrong. Their offices are and were in Mooresville, NC.

And ya you can be a Clevelander all you want. I'm not.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

4 edits

Karl Bode to JAAulde

News Guy

to JAAulde
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 Member
join:2003-12-05
Atlanta, GA

1 edit

CableConvert

Premium Member

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

blueeyesm

Member

So...

...how much will these new rules cost the consumer?
brookeOB1
join:2010-08-09

1 recommendation

brookeOB1

Member

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 Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

1 edit

ptrowski

Premium Member

Re: Really?

Brooke, would Google or Verizon happen to be one of your clients?
Edit-Looks like it is Verizon.
patrickp8
Patrick
join:2002-05-03
Bloomington, IL

1 recommendation

patrickp8

Member

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

••••

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

3 edits

1 recommendation

Karl Bode to brookeOB1

News Guy

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....

••••••

TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium Member
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx
·Verizon FiOS
Ubiquiti NSM5
Synology RT2600ac
Apple AirPort Extreme (2013)

TamaraB to brookeOB1

Premium Member

to brookeOB1
said by brookeOB1:

... Google and Verizon had reached a business arrangement about payments for the movement of traffic. That is demonstrably, 100% false.
And you know this how? Because two CEOs say so? I have a bridge here in NY for sale, want to buy it?

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102

Member

''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.

kingdome74
Let's Go Orange
Premium Member
join:2002-03-27
Syracuse, NY

kingdome74

Premium Member

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.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

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 Member
join:2002-05-07
Seattle, WA

innoman

Premium Member

"an messy"

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

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

1 edit

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: "an messy"

typo fixed, thank you.
cajun4x4
join:2000-10-02
Rayne, LA

cajun4x4

Member

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.

•••••••

asdfdfdfdfdf
@1dial.com

asdfdfdfdfdf

Anon

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.blogs ··· 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

Karl Bode

News Guy

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.

asdfdfdfdfdf
@1dial.com

asdfdfdfdfdf

Anon

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

"That sounds desperate and frankly a little naive."

I don't see why. I'm reading the wording of the paragraph.

"STILL-NASCENT NATURE of the wireless broadband marketplace...would not NOW apply most of the wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency requirement."

They seem to be leaving the possibility open of future changes to this while not forcing verizon to do something that it fears will overwhelm the present limits of its wireless infrastructure. This is an opportunity to test whether verizon is acting in good faith on this point and is willing to see wireless fall under wireline rules in future when capacity and wireless broadband penetration reach a certain point. It certainly isn't as bad as what was implied in recent press reports that there was going to be some kind of permanent exclusion of wireless from net neutrality rules.

"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?"

Sure but the launch of lte doesn't mean that everyone is going to suddenly flock to wireless broadband from dsl or fios, or even have the opportunity to do so. Right now, and for the foreseeable future, what i said is correct. Perhaps the day will come when wireline internet access will die as the legacy copper voice system is for the bells but that is still quite a few years off.

"What commitment? "
quote:
First, both companies have long been proponents of the FCC’s current wireline broadband openness principles, which ensure that consumers have access to all legal content on the Internet, and can use what applications, services, and devices they choose. The enforceability of those principles was called into serious question by the recent Comcast court decision. Our proposal would now make those principles fully enforceable at the FCC.

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.

Importantly, this new nondiscrimination principle includes a presumption against prioritization of Internet traffic - including paid prioritization. So, 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.
This language seems like a pretty significant change from the rhetoric of the incumbents, including verizon, up to this point.

"the framework is junk"

The framework needs a lot of additional work and specifics but I don't agree that it is junk. It is more than we have gotten from any of the incumbents up to this point and therefore it represents some glimmer of progress. It is in our interests to try to follow up the thread rather than just dump on it and go back to decrying how corrupt and perverted everything is.
If the fcc thinks it can effect the title II reclassification that is great. Otherwise, given where things stand now, it looks like we are in for more paralysis, which it doesn't seem to me is in our interest. The market isn't going to just stand still and wireless isn't moving in the direction of openness in the present market environment. So if we get nothing will we really be better off?
slckusr
Premium Member
join:2003-03-17
Greenville, SC

slckusr

Premium Member

So this is the cover.

FOr the deal they were making last week and caught doing ?

I guess they had to drop the pay per tiers and whatever else that cost $$ envisioned and release this to save face.

We all should of known when Verizon got with Google they would corrupt them.
cajun4x4
join:2000-10-02
Rayne, LA

cajun4x4

Member

Re: So this is the cover.

I wouldn't be calling Google the uncorrupted one here. Google is a billion dollar behemoth and there sole purpose is to expand revenues any way they can.

DavePR
join:2008-06-04
Canyon Country, CA

DavePR to slckusr

Member

to slckusr
Money and power can turn anyone into a monster, and it usually does. Google is as corrupt and paranoid as any business that ever blackened humanity.

If I believed in religion, I'd be praying for a giant CME to take down the whole tech world right about now. We are in the dystopian future as predicted in a thousand sci-fi stories; we are facing Dr. Frankenstein's monster and his name is "connectivity".
XknightHawkX
join:2003-02-13
East Peoria, IL

XknightHawkX

Member

Bad wording by Google and Verizon?

(1) send and receive lawful content of their choice;
(2) run lawful applications and use lawful services of their choice; and
(3) connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network or service, facilitate theft of service, or harm other users of the service.

Um lawful? Meaning they are going to mess with torrent traffic cause MPAA and RIAA says it's used for piracy. Now what about the torrent traffic that is lawful. Ubuntu is downloaded through torrents. Other Linux platforms are downloaded by torrents.

Now let's see. They said lawful and when the RIAA and MPAA decide they have some piracy to kick in the butt they can go after Google and Verizon cause they say Lawful so I guess nothing illegal will be going on. From their rules it looks like the RIAA and MPAA is going to get what they want. The ISP policeing itself.

I know I'm not a great writer but I sure hope people understand what I am saying.

Verizon and Google need to watch how they word their policy might give them an open door to lawsuits from the RIAA and MPAA that Verizon and Google would lose right off cause of their policy.

Betrayed
@mindspring.com

Betrayed

Anon

Google sold us out!

Just replaced Google search with Bing as the default search in all my computers at home and at work. I know Bing is not as good, but I feel betrayed by Google.

••••

monk
@rr.com

monk

Anon

the fix

don't buy there stuff and we will win but you know people are like drug addicts they can not live with out this crap i need the new crap i will die with out my email have a nice day