Suspected PayPal Hackers Seek Deal To Stay Out Of Prison
2 Men Arrested After Teen Was Run Over For His iPad
Google and Verizon introduce net neutrality proposal
When Google and Verizon got together last week to talk about net neutrality, everyone -- including the New York Times -- freaked out and assumed that Google was trying to get Verizon to prioritize Google traffic across Verizon's broadband infrastructure. Today, the two companies held a joint press conference to say that the exact opposite is true: both companies are supporting a 7-point plan to maintain net neutrality, and they want the US government to get behind it.The plan, outlined on the official Google Blog, would give the FCC broad powers to ensure that all traffic is treated equally, plus enforcement powers to punish companies that play favorites. Internet service providers would also no longer be able to prioritize any kind of legal traffic on their networks over any other in a way that hurts users or stifles competition. Providers would also have to be more transparent about what their services actually do, instead of advertising speeds and services that don't come close to what they promise. We're talking an open broadband marketplace where consumers have all the power, and the FCC has the ability to protect us, the users.
Personally, I'm all for it. Read over Google's plan and tell Download Squad what you think of it in the comments.
Comments
12
Subscribe to commentsAemonyAug 9th 2010 3:19PM
Awesome. Prevent 1984 from occuring and allow true freedom of speech in a media so very powerful nobody should control it.
I'm all for it.
drunken111monkeyAug 9th 2010 3:37PM
To bad the fcc is only one step up from letting the companies run the show.
MxxConAug 9th 2010 4:03PM
if only it was actually that..
read the actual analysis of what its all about http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Google-Announce-Their-Net-Neutrality-Solution-109810
mgarciaAug 10th 2010 5:36PM
You people crack me up. How exactly is the government running the show not 1984? Why on earth would you trust the government anymore than you trust a free market? Go figure.
I'm not saying that the FCC won't do a good job at regulating companies, but don't you think that eventually they'll start regulating you and me too?
I would rather deal with a bunch of companies trying to make a buck off of me than a government organization answerable to We The People, via twenty layers of officials.
MorganAug 9th 2010 3:37PM
Yeah, no one can control it except the state, that's just the opposite of 1984 all the way. You people do realize it's the FCC that brought us radio censorship, the Janet Jackson fines, and so on. No way that can happen on the Internet, no way will they fluidly define 'legal' traffic, just no downside at all, let's get some legislation rocking asap.
My opinion, this isn't even 'unintended' consequences we're looking at, just totally predictable ones, and if you support it now I hope you'll stand up and be counted when actual real state-enforced censorship begins.
Classic genius, keep up the great work.
saltrixAug 9th 2010 3:58PM
It sounded good till I read the google post.
They are for net neutrality as long as its not on verizons wireless network or any service they deem "differentiated". Which could turn into just about anything.
Totally bogus plan, which I expected from verizon, but not from google...
AlainAug 9th 2010 6:06PM
I typed up a lengthy post earlier, not sure why it hasn't shown up (probably mistyped my returning user password, oops.)
Anyway, essentially the same vibe as saltrix or the dslreports piece. Skimming it, it looks really nice, but that's because it's a press release. The actual content sounds terrible and precisely NOT like net neutrality. "Differentiated services" are just x-over-ip, which should absolutely be carried over dumb pipes. Unsurprisingly, Verizon isn't interested, so instead the "smart grid" will cost customers directly as an extra line item on your ISP bill, and premium online gaming services (XBOX Live Gold et al.) will have additional charges there too. Sure, you could say these are all things you'd probably pay for anyway - but does anyone really doubt this'll be used as another avenue to squeeze extra revenue?
And the main problem - none of this applies to wireless broadband, even though the now almost antiquated 3G speeds already more than adequately satisfies "broadband" as defined for regulatory purposes - to say nothing of the capabilities of next-gen cellular.
Is anyone surprised, though? The wireless incumbents are simply applying their existing business models - charge for every single service individually, no matter how minute its cost to you, that way customers have to fight you for a discount on every front at once, or sign up for a "value pack." Heck, the U.S. carriers still largely charge for every *incoming* SMS, no?
minibarAug 10th 2010 12:15AM
"Heck, the U.S. carriers still largely charge for every *incoming* SMS, no?"
true, although most probably fork over roughly $5 monthly for unlimited sms, but a la carte sms ten years ago at what is now verizon was 5 cents per but now they're charging 25. a quarter dollar for one sms. seriously.
ZachAug 10th 2010 12:46AM
Wow, you really missed the analysis on this one. GigaOM has a much more accurate take on the matter: http://gigaom.com/2010/08/09/tech-companies-google-sold-you-out/
JamesAug 10th 2010 1:42AM
This is not a hard problem to solve. Carrier prioritizes VoIP traffic over torrents: OK. Carrier prioritizes YouTube over Vimeo (for a kickback from Google): not OK. Now write a law.
Martin K.Aug 12th 2010 2:21AM
Personally, I'd rather the U.S. not try to emulate the UK and Australia. Even if they did a good job at keeping the internet "neutral", there's no way they'd stop there. Give the government dominion over the internet and there's no stopping them.
SugarDaddyAug 12th 2010 11:14AM
This is by far the worst analysis on this subject I've seen so far. I'm disappointed in you DLS. Basically the plan is for the big corporations (verizon and google among others) to gut the FCC's regulation powers over the internet and more importantly wireless networks. I'm not sure how anyone who values the rights of people to challenge corporations should be "all for it". This plan stinks -- as much as any plan where the big corporations define the rules that govern themselves. We've seen what happened when the Bush administration let the energy companies define their own rules -- anyone remember the worst oil spill in history currently wreaking havoc in the gulf?