Google and Verizon outline vision for 'open internet'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10920871

Google and Verizon have joined forces to present their vision of an "open internet", intended as a framework for future regulation of US net services.
Both champion the idea of an open net for fixed line services but suggest loopholes for mobile traffic and for some specialised content.
This could allow net providers to give priority to certain online traffic.
Supporters of net neutrality, where all web data is treated equally, fear the plan will spawn a two-tier service.
"It would give companies like Verizon, Comcast and AT&T the right to decide which content will move fast and which should be slowed down," said Joel Kelsey of public policy group Free Press.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/te..._r=2&th&emc=th

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0...4.html#s123410

The latter does supply a sort of denial and hints that the proposal may only affect mobile phone users accessing the internet..

So I wonder if anything is going on and what agreements have been reached between the two?

[vanman]

http://static.googleusercontent.com/...sal_081010.pdf

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/docume...?id=7020378826

Verizon-Google Legislative Framework Proposal

We believe such a framework should include the following key elements:
Consumer Protections: A broadband Internet access service provider would be prohibited from
preventing users of its broadband Internet access service from--
(1) sending and receiving lawful content of their choice;
(2) running lawful applications and using lawful services of their choice; and
(3) connecting their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network or
service, facilitate theft of service, or harm other users of the service.

http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.c...-internet.html

[vanman]

Protesters denounce Google plan for 'two-tier internet'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10961776

We want to raise awareness about this issue and shine a light on how important it is to keep the internet free and open to one and all," said Raging Granny Gail Sredanovic. Martha Champion donned a heavy black Victorian costume to drive home her concerns.
"I am in mourning for the death of the internet and believe this plan will lock out those that can't afford to pay a premium for their content to load faster or for their site to go quickly."

The rally organisers presented Google with boxes of petitions they claimed held the signatures of 300,000 people opposed to anything that would harm the principle of net neutrality.

I've merged the two threads as they were on the same topic.




---------- Post added at 15:45 ---------- Previous post was at 15:43 ----------

By the way vanman got any opinions on this subject or are you just randomly posting anything about Google?

Come on you must have some thoughts,opinions about it so why not share them?

[vanman]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Come on you must have some thoughts,opinions about it so why not share them?

sorry maggy not going to give my opinion on this as it may seem that i am paranoid and need a tinfoil hat

Originally Posted by vanman

sorry maggy not going to give my opinion on this as it may seem that i am paranoid and need a tinfoil hat

You giving an opinion on Google won't make us think that......

[vanman]

well it seems to me that Google and Verizon are set to run the internet and decide who can use it and for what purpose if you are a big corp your ok high speed internet....... little man just writing his blog has slow internet he don't matter as he has no money to give Google and Verizon

[Stuart]

While I am not a fan of Google (just look at my previous posts for evidence of that) and I don't believe they are the force for good they claim, it's worth remembering that no one directly pays Google for internet access.

It's also worth remembering that the proposals they've tabled specifically ban the kind of proritisation you say they say proposing.

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.

[vanman]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

it's worth remembering that no one directly pays Google for internet access.

yet !

---------- Post added at 17:49 ---------- Previous post was at 17:35 ----------

Network Management: Broadband Internet access service providers are permitted to engage in
reasonable network management. Reasonable network management includes any technically
sound practice: to reduce or mitigate the effects of congestion on its network; to ensure network
security or integrity; to address traffic that is unwanted by or harmful to users, the provider’s
network, or the Internet; to ensure service quality to a subscriber; to provide services or
capabilities consistent with a consumer’s choices; that is consistent with the technical
requirements, standards, or best practices adopted by an independent, widely-recognized Internet
community governance initiative or standard-setting organization; to prioritize general classes or
types of Internet traffic, based on latency; or otherwise to manage the daily operation of its
network.
Additional Online Services: A provider that offers a broadband Internet access service
complying with the above principles could offer any other additional or differentiated services.
Such other services would have to be distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband
Internet access service, but could make use of or access Internet content, applications or services
and could include traffic prioritization. The FCC would publish an annual report on the effect of

I love the "yet".

An asteroid hasn't hit the Earth - YET!

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by vanman

yet ![COLOR="Silver"]

I haven't got a ferrari yet. It does not mean or imply I am going to get one.

Additional Online Services: A provider that offers a broadband Internet access service
complying with the above principles could offer any other additional or differentiated services.
Such other services would have to be distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband
Internet access service, but could make use of or access Internet content, applications or services
and could include traffic prioritization. The FCC would publish an annual report on the effect of

This is what happens now. The key is the phrase "Such other services would have to be distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband
Internet access service". This means that the companies would be free to proritise protocols that are not strictly internet related (such as VOIP) differently. It does not necessarily mean one website will be proritised over another.

[vanman]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

I love the "yet".

An asteroid hasn't hit the Earth - YET!

it has
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/deepimpact-04h.html

According to new research led by a University of Colorado at Boulder geophysicist, a giant asteroid that hit the coast of Mexico 65 million years ago probably incinerated all the large dinosaurs that were alive at the time in only a few hours, and only those organisms already sheltered in burrows or in water were left alive.

---------- Post added at 18:42 ---------- Previous post was at 18:40 ----------

Originally Posted by Stuart C

It does not necessarily mean one website will be proritised over another.

it don't say it won't either

"They are talking about producing a fast lane, essentially a higher tier, for premium content that means if you want to play in the 21st Century internet you will have to pay."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10961776

[Stuart]

Where have Google or Verizon talked about that? It's all very well posting quotes from protest groups, but they have their own agenda to push, so aren't going to say anything that disproves that agenda.

---------- Post added at 18:54 ---------- Previous post was at 18:49 ----------

Originally Posted by vanman

it don't say it won't either

So why speculate it will?

[vanman]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Where have Google or Verizon talked about that? It's all very well posting quotes from protest groups, but they have their own agenda to push, so aren't going to say anything that disproves that agenda.

they have not denied it

Many news outlets reported Google and Verizon as edging towards a deal that could see content creators paying for internet service providers to fast-track content to consumers.

Several public interest groups, meanwhile, voiced concerns that a deal between Verizon and Google would allow broadband providers to offer premium services and would not apply to wireless networks. Josh Silver, founder and president of the group Free Press, warned that an agreement would amount to "a bold grab for market power by two monopolistic players" and would "effectively create two Internets where application and content innovators have to ask Verizon and Google for permission to reach

---------- Post added at 19:02 ---------- Previous post was at 19:00 ----------

Originally Posted by Stuart C

So why speculate it will?

Quote:
Originally Posted by

Maggy J

Come on you must have some thoughts,opinions about it so why not share them?

sorry maggy not going to give my opinion on this as it may seem that i am paranoid and need a tinfoil hat

my thoughts, ............my opinions

[Stuart]

You are entitled to those opinions. I was just asking your reasons for them.