Google-Verizon nix 'net neutrality' for wireless

[onehandle]

Source: AFP

SAN FRANCISCO (AFP) – Google and US telecom titan Verizon on Monday proposed a legal framework to safeguard 'net neutrality' but said the rules should not apply to wireless broadband Internet connections. "We both recognize that wireless broadband is different from the traditional wireline world, in part because the mobile marketplace is more competitive and changing rapidly," the companies said in a joint statement.

"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." Google and Verizon laid out a detailed plan for US legislators to create laws aimed at preventing Internet service providers from violating "net neutrality" by giving some data priority over other digital information.

"The original architects of the Internet got the big things right," the companies said. "By making the network open, they enabled the greatest exchange of ideas in history. By making the Internet scalable, they enabled explosive innovation in the infrastructure."

Recommending that wireless Internet connections be exempt from net neutrality rules played into fears that Google is changing allegiance in the battle to stop ISPs from giving preferential treatment to those that pay.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100809/tc_afp/usitinternettelecomgovernmentgoogleverizon_20100809185221

---

Google, Verizon Outline Internet Policy Proposal

Just days after the FCC announced it was abandoning efforts at reaching a compromise on net neutrality, Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg laid out a "joint policy proposal" that would provide guidelines for how information and Internet traffic should be handled over wireless and wireline networks.

Google published the terms of the Google-Verizon agreement in a blog post titled "A Joint Policy for an Open Internet." Their plan, which does not treat wireless and wireline networks equally and has been accused of having a "giant, enormous, science-fiction-quality" loophole, includes seven key elements.

Additional commentary and analysis is forthcoming. According to the New York Times, Media Access Project's Andrew Jay Schwartzman says, "The plan raises as many questions as it answers. For example, it does not disclose the standard to be used in resolving consumer complaints. One question that the plan does definitively answer is that the non-discrimination proposal would never apply to wireless. That alone makes this arrangement a non-starter."

Law professor Susan Crawford argues that there are two major loopholes in their proposal. First, the failure to spell out net neutrality for wireless networks is "a huge hole, given the growing popularity of wireless services and the recent suggestion by the Commission that we may not have a competitive wireless marketplace." Second, Crawford writes that exempting "managed services" from regulation is a "giant, enormous, science-fiction-quality loophole" and "prioritization using another label."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/09/google-verizon-deal-net-n_n_675847.html

______________________________

One tech blogger just summed this up perfectly:

'Google and Verizon’s Joint Policy Proposal for an Open Internet: Just keep repeating the word “open” '

They just had a live joint press conference where they seem to be attempting to 'redefine' Net Neutrality. They seem to be saying that net neutrality is ok for most of the hardwired Internet, but that the wireless Internet is 'too new' for net neutrality. Of course the wireless Internet will be most of the Internet in the not so distant future. Some tech blogs say this is a way to isolate some bandwidth of the Internet (for yet to be offered 'alternate streams') and get the feds to impose fines on your local ISPs if they don't obey Google/Verizon's wishes.

One thing is clear. They lied (or bent the truth) about not having a 'deal' last week. So it's a 'proposal?' Sounds like a Contract On America type 'proposal.'

I smell a rat.

Here's the Google Policy Blog:
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-for-open-internet.html

[xultar]

1. Fucking liars

[woo me with science]

2. I've been waiting for this post. nt

[Downwinder]

3. I am sanitizing my machine of Google.

Suggest DU do the same.

[Derechos]

4. NYT - Google and Verizon Announce Net Neutrality Proposal

Running blog on call with reporters. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/live-blogging-google-verizon-call-on-net-neutrality/

[Gman]

5. On the surface it looks OK until

#4 with a "complaint driven process", which creates the usual corporate "catch me if you can and then try to prove it and we'll appeal" bullshit. This gives big telecoms their traditional way out by allowing them to stretch out, gum up, delay and ultimately renege on any promises or commitments.

#5... "It is too soon to predict how these new services will develop, but examples might include health care monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services, or new entertainment and gaming options. 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." Read this as --> for an extra price over and above your basic broadband Internet which will basically let you browse the web and check email. Anything else is extra. And I guarantee you they WILL distinguish them. ---on edit--- This one is real sneakey. I can see a "cafeteria" of sorts that includes basic service of email checking and web browsing, but if you want access to like youtube.com or Pandora or other multimedia sites, that's extra. If you want gaming, that's really extra. And they will act like it's so friggin' wonderful that they can give consumers a choice Gag me.

#6 "...we both recognize that wireless broadband is different from the traditional wireline world, 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. Read this as --> We still want to make exorbitant amounts of money off wireless while we can and we'll delay bringing it under wireline provisions as long as we can. And when they do it will be part of the "cafeteria" plan. Gag me again.

#7 "...finally, we strongly believe that it is in the national interest for all Americans to have broadband access to the Internet. Therefore, we support reform of the Federal Universal Service Fund, so that it is focused on deploying broadband in areas where it is not now available." This one is a real laugher because over the past 10-15 years or so telecoms have persuaded state legislatures to stick an extra fee onto telephone bills for building out broadband in rural areas. The fact is that VERY little has been done to build out broadband in rural areas. Telecoms will now have a likely larger federal fee to pocket along with state fees (Republicans will say it is a tax increase) while still shuffling their feet and acting like they're doing something when they have no intention of building out broadband in any areas where they don't think the market can justify the expense. I can elaborate a whole lot on this one. But any Verizon territory in Texas that is not in the Metroplex or Houston area or maybe Bryan/College Station does NOT have DSL. They would rather put the money into FIOS in the aforementioned areas probably while pocketing the infrastructure fees but never using the fees for what they were intended to be. AT&T is only slightly better than VZ.

After the first 3 points, the rest is bullshit and caving to big telecoms.

[JDPriestly]

14. My husband and I are on Social Security. We can't afford to pay

more for the internet service we get. We don't have cable. It, too, is too expensive if you are on Social Security. I don't need Google.

We are thinking of having one cell phone for the two of us also to save money. Verizon should think twice as should Google.

Google is not owned by its founders much anymore. Very little of the stock of Google is owned by insiders. That's why Google doesn't care about the customers or really about the internet any more. They just want to make money. Forget that. I don't need them.

[Downwinder]

16. Have you checked to see if there is an open WIFI signal you can receive?

[dipsydoodle]

6. I think you may find that

this is directed at mobile users who are taking the piss with sheer amount of downloads. Given that I'm not one of them I really couldn't give a fuck. Pay for it or lose it.

[onehandle]

7. No, there is a lot more to this 'proposal.'

Analysis is still coming in.

[dipsydoodle]

10. In fairness

that's what has become apparent in the UK and the providors are recacting against it.

It might help if someone was to give an exdample here on what lies in the tier.

[Uncle Joe]

8. If they're not going to protect wireless with Net Neutrality, it does no good.

The Internet is going wireless and to abandon the democratic protection of Net Neutrality for that growing aspect of the Internet is a betrayal and tragedy, and this can only serve to be a slow releasing poison for the democratic First Amendment empowering functions of the Internet.

Thanks for the thread, onehandle.

[LaPera]

9. "Overeacting"

was what people on DU told me, and insisted Google is a fine socially minded company looking out for the best of all people, not just corporations like themselves and that Google would never team up with these republican donating slimy muti-national collusive corporations just for controlling content & money....When I first read this story on Huffington Post last week and the anger I felt.... as people insisted Google would NEVER do this - As it turns out Google was indeed committed to doing this deal - yet Goggle lied & denied it profusely last week - ALL so Google could soften the words & manipulate the terminology over the week-end while pretending noble intentions as they try to slip this on by us....But I retracted my extremely angry post - Not now - I'm again submitting my extremely angry post that I faxed to Google last week (and I should do again this week)......


GOOGLE,

YOU LYING MOTHERFUCKING ASS-KISSING REPUBLICAN ASSHOLES!

REPUBLICAN CORPORATE MEDIA WHO NOW CONTROLS MOST NEWS & INFORMATION THROUGH CORPORATE CONTROL OF THE AIRWAVES, CABLE & PRINT – REPUBLICANS HAVE WANTED TO CONTROL INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET THROUGH CORPORATIONS, LIKE AT&T AND VERIZON FROM THE VERY BEGINNING AND YOU FUCKERS ARE SIMPLY GOING TO HELP IN HANDING IT TO THEM.

THE CORPORATE STATE WE LIVE IN NEEDS TO CONTROL CONTENT & INFORMATION IN ORDER TO SUPPRESS & BENEFIT. WHILE REPUBLICANS IDEOLOGY & AGENDA IS TO HELP WITH LEGISLATION FOR CORPORATIONS GOBBLING UP SMALL BUSINESS AND ENSLAVING WORKERS – JUST SO YOU CAN HELP OUT EVEN MORE THE JUST SAY “NO”, GREEDY, HATEFUL, LYING OBSTRUCTIONIST REPUBLICANS. EVERYTHING THEY DO IS ONLY FOR CORPORATIONS!

GOOGLE YOU ARE JUST ANOTHER BUNCH OF CORRUPT MONEY-HUNGRY GREEDY CORPORATE BASTARDS. YOU ARE JUST GOING TO ALLOW THESE CORPORATIONS TO CHARGE FOR FASTER CONTENT - WHO IDEA’S & IDEOLOGY WILL AFFORD THIS, WHILE MAKING IT OUT OF REACH FOR THE NON RICH - GIVING THE FASCIST CORPORATE PROPAGANDA PRIORITY - THE SAME WEALTHY & THEIR CORPORATIONS. THESE AREN’T JUST WORDS TO LAUGH AT WHILE THE SALARIED LITTLE GOOGLE STAFF SUCK DOWN THEIR FUCKING COFFEE EACH DAY!

[no limit]

11. Well thats nice that net neutrality shouldn't apply to wireless networks

when those wireless networks will probably have a huge majority of the market in another 5-10 years. With free wifi on your phone most people that have smartphones will find that they don't need land connections, as many have with phone lines. And I bet within a few years the wireless market will become more prominent than cable/DSL (although slower).

Nice to know Google thinks that net neutrality shouldn't apply to those networks.

:sarcasm:

[boppers]

36. A cell phone tower connection is not the same as a WiFi connection.

Of course, if you want to pay a few grand a month for guaranteed bandwidth, that's always been an available option, so no change there.

[no limit]

38. I didn't mean a phone tower connection is the same as wifi. That cell phones have hotspot builtin

and if they don't have a hotspot built in chances are you can tether.

It doesn't matter how you connect to the internet, once on it the internet should be neutral no matter your connection method or provider.

[ixion]

12. Google and Verisuk can take their "proposal"

and shove it.

[JDPriestly]

13. I switched from Google search to Yahoo search.

Works fine. I switched my home page from Google to Yahoo. Works fine.

We are switching from Verizon to Credo for our cell service.

We have been talking about the Verizon to Credo switch for months now, but this is the last straw. We will choose our new plan and our new phones this week.

Google and Verizon simply got too large a portion of the market. They can't handle it.

This proposal is absolutely awful. Wireless is future of the internet. This is the same nonsense that got pulled with TV. You can hardly get any TV reception on an old TV any more. You have to use the new system. They will do that with the internet. Hard wired internet will be a thing of the past and so will net neutrality.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

15. When did those companies buy the internets?

Who the hell ARE they that they think they can simply grab control of such things and dictate national policy in the first place?

Just askin'... :shrug:

[sundayatwork]

34. They are...

... the people who do in a very real sense own the internet. 'The Internet' is really just a series of protocols. But, Google is how most people find anything on the internet, and 'The Internet' runs on the cables and cell towers of companies like Verizon and AT&T. The software might be open, but the hardware costs a lot to build and maintain. These are the companies that do that building and maintaining.

[kpete]

17. Google-Verizon Pact Worse than Feared

Source: Free Press

Google-Verizon Pact Worse than Feared

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Date: August 9, 2010

WASHINGTON -- In response to Google and Verizon’s “policy framework” unveiled today, MoveOn.Org Civic Action, Credo Action, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, ColorofChange.org and Free Press, all members of the SavetheInternet.com Coalition, issued the following joint statement:

"The Google-Verizon pact isn’t just as bad as we feared — it’s much worse. They are attacking the Internet while claiming to preserve it. Google users won’t be fooled.

"They are promising Net Neutrality only for a certain part of the Internet, one that they’ll likely stop investing in. But they are also paving the way for a new 'Internet' via fiber and wireless phones where Net Neutrality will not apply and corporations can pick and choose which sites people can easily view on their phones or any other Internet device using these networks.

"It would open the door to outright blocking of applications, just as Comcast did with BitTorrent, or the blocking of content, just as Verizon did with text messages from NARAL Pro-choice America. It would divide the information superhighway, creating new private fast lanes for the big players while leaving the little guy stranded on a winding dirt road.

Read more: http://www.freepress.net/press-release/2010/8/9/google-verizon-pact-worse-feared

[glinda]

18. Direct hit on freedom of speech and information. Bam*

[defendandprotect]

19. Sure we all trust Verizon/Google -- and Comcast wants to buy NBC . . .

or the blocking of content, just as Verizon did with text messages from NARAL

Wow!!


On the positive side ... obviously too much liberal truth is still getting thru to block

their fascist rise!!

We'd better all hurry if we're going to use the internet to plan the next revolution!!!

[randr]

20. What can the internet do to fuck with google?

[EFerrari]

22. Boycott their search engine.

To remind them what "slow" looks like?

[Downwinder]

29. Wonder if Firefox can block all Ads. by Google.

[EFerrari]

31. I just installed AdBlock and when I go to Google

ain't nobody selling anything. :shrug:

[Uncle Joe]

21. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[prairierose]

23. Another kick for a very important story...n/t

[boppers]

24. Sky is falling. News at 11.

Comcast didn't block BitTorrent. They throttled it down, by sending packets that meant a connection had to be rebuilt.

That's a pretty good indicator of how accurate the facts are in this piece.

[chrisa]

25. Allow me to repost -

What the internet will be in 5 years if Congress caves in:

[Amerigo Vespucci]

26. Yeah, except the prices will be a hell of a lot higher.

Fans of watching Netflix online "on demand" movies? Bend over and grab your ankles. Your bill has arrived.

:grr:

[chrisa]

30. And also, say goodbye to sites like DU in the longrun,

Unless if DU wants to shell out alot of money. Even then, judging by DU's general attitude towards corporations (which is usually justified), we would be the first ones on the chopping block for "service changes."

I'm not optimistic. In the long run, the internet will be ruined by greed. It's only a matter of time. Corporations have bought our government, and the internet is the next logical frontier. Why spend alot of money on PR when you can control the flow of information to people in the first place? Isn't that what Enron learned, as they practically killed people by cutting their electricity?

[boppers]

37. DU runs for free now?

What's the deal with the fundraising drives, then?

:sarcasm:

[woo me with science]

27. +1

[woo me with science]

28. K & R

This must be stopped.

[Triana]

32. what a surprise....

:sarcasm:

[Auggie]

33. Fight them, damn it. Fucking fight them.

I'm so angry my head is exploding

:nuke:

[JCMach1]

35. someone needs to remind them WE OWN THE DAMN INTERNET

and the airwaves, MEANING THE PEOPLE