[UltimateBMW]

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-..._b_676194.html

So Google and Verizon went public today with their "policy framework" -- better known as the pact to end the Internet as we know it.

News of this deal broke this week, sparking a public outcry that's seen hundreds of thousands of Internet users calling on Google to live up to its "Don't Be Evil" pledge.

But cut through the platitudes the two companies (Googizon, anyone?) offered on today's press call, and you'll find this deal is even worse than advertised.

The proposal is one massive loophole that sets the stage for the corporate takeover of the Internet.

Real Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers can't discriminate between different kinds of online content and applications. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies. It's what makes sure the next Google, out there in a garage somewhere, has just as good a chance as any giant corporate behemoth to find its audience and thrive online.

What Google and Verizon are proposing is fake Net Neutrality. You can read their framework for yourself here or go here to see Google twisting itself in knots about this suddenly "thorny issue." But here are the basics of what the two companies are proposing:

1. Under their proposal, there would be no Net Neutrality on wireless networks -- meaning anything goes, from blocking websites and applications to pay-for-priority treatment.

2. Their proposed standard for "non-discrimination" on wired networks is so weak that actions like Comcast's widely denounced blocking of BitTorrent would be allowed.

3. The deal would let ISPs like Verizon -- instead of Internet users like you -- decide which applications deserve the best quality of service. That's not the way the Internet has ever worked, and it threatens to close the door on tomorrow's innovative applications. (If RealPlayer had been favored a few years ago, would we ever have gotten YouTube?)

4. The deal would allow ISPs to effectively split the Internet into "two pipes" -- one of which would be reserved for "managed services," a pay-for-play platform for content and applications. This is the proverbial toll road on the information superhighway, a fast lane reserved for the select few, while the rest of us are stuck on the cyber-equivalent of a winding dirt road.

5. The pact proposes to turn the Federal Communications Commission into a toothless watchdog, left fruitlessly chasing consumer complaints but unable to make rules of its own. Instead, it would leave it up to unaccountable (and almost surely industry-controlled) third parties to decide what the rules should be.

If there's a silver lining in this whole fiasco it's that, last I checked anyway, it wasn't up to Google and Verizon to write the rules. That's why we have Congress and the FCC.

Certainly by now we should have learned -- from AIG, Massey Energy, BP, you name it -- what happens when we let big companies regulate themselves or hope they'll do the right thing.

We need the FCC -- with the backing of Congress and President Obama -- to step and do the hard work of governing. That means restoring the FCC's authority to protect Internet users and safeguarding real Net Neutrality once and for all.

Such a move might not be popular on Wall Street or even in certain corners of Silicon Valley, but it's the kind of leadership the public needs right now.

If you haven't yet told the FCC why we need Net Neutrality, please do it now.

[Freakazoid]

wow that's actually some scary shit...

[ghosthi32]

time to load up on the proxies everyone

[escobar929]

thats fucking major BS if its all true

[BTM]

I may be missing something, but as I understand this it basically lets ISPs limit your content, correct? What's to stop an ISP from differentiating it's product (service) by not limiting content? I can't see many corporations or businesses signing "exclusivity" deals with a single ISP - they want as many people to access their product as possible. I guess the only really unfortunate part, is if this comes to fruition, companies like youtube and facebook may be lobbied to sign with a single ISP, but I don't see how that is in their best interest from a volume and therefore advertising standpoint...

[Freakazoid]

Originally Posted by BTM

I may be missing something, but as I understand this it basically lets ISPs limit your content, correct? What's to stop an ISP from differentiating it's product (service) by not limiting content? I can't see many corporations or businesses signing "exclusivity" deals with a single ISP - they want as many people to access their product as possible. I guess the only really unfortunate part, is if this comes to fruition, companies like youtube and facebook may be lobbied to sign with a single ISP, but I don't see how that is in their best interest from a volume and therefore advertising standpoint...

if I'm reading it correctly, the part that concerns me the most is the pay for priority aspect (i.e. the true end to net neutrality). Companies will be able to pay ISPs for bandwidth focused entirely on their network of sites...

[c0nstant]

www.endoftheinter.net

[Vanity]

Originally Posted by UltimateBMW

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-..._b_676194.html

I did a search on the credibility of The Huffington Post. By far, this was my favourite comment "It's an extreme reliable source with extremely unreliable information". This site apparently does none of it's own research. It reads other news articles on the internet and then just puts it's own spin on it. You can tell because they rarely put in quotes from the people involved, just their own opinion.

But I was interested to see whether this Google-Verizon deal was as serious as HuffPo had made it out to be so, I checked for a reliable news source: CNN (atleast, IMO).

I'll now compare the two articles, because HuffPo's seems very ONE-SIDED and (tbh) contains some misinformation.

HuffPo:

4. The deal would allow ISPs to effectively split the Internet into "two pipes" -- one of which would be reserved for "managed services," a pay-for-play platform for content and applications. This is the proverbial toll road on the information superhighway, a fast lane reserved for the select few, while the rest of us are stuck on the cyber-equivalent of a winding dirt road.

This made me worrisome because it looked like they were going to divide the internet into paying customers and shun out non-paying customers. But here's what CNN wrote in their article:

CNN:

"Verizon and Google are reportedly close to an agreement that meets somewhere in the middle: Verizon would not favor certain types of content over others on its FiOS wireline broadband network. However, those restrictions would not apply to its Verizon Wireless mobile network, which has more significant bandwidth constraints."

"Our goal is an Internet policy framework that ensures openness and accountability, and incorporates specific FCC authority, while maintaining investment and innovation," said David Fish, a spokesman for Verizon, in a company blog post. "To suggest this is a business arrangement between our companies is entirely incorrect."

The splitting of the internet into "two pipes" is misinformed. The only "split" is between Broadband wired-connections and wireless cellular connections. It's the wireless portion that is "pay-for-play", just like it is right now. So it looks like Verizon will NOT be restricting anything regarding it's broadband network, this all has to do with Verizon's wireless cellular network. Which makes sense, because Google and Verizon made a deal last year to bring the Android onto Verizon's network. If you read CNN's article, it looks like Verizon wants to regulate the information it sends out to it's Smartphone users (I.e Android users). Which means, what HuffPo said was incorrect and meant to misinform:

HuffPo:

3. The deal would let ISPs like Verizon -- instead of Internet users like you -- decide which applications deserve the best quality of service. That's not the way the Internet has ever worked, and it threatens to close the door on tomorrow's innovative applications. (If RealPlayer had been favored a few years ago, would we ever have gotten YouTube?)

If this is all about the wireless networks (since both companies have made it clear they won't be touching the DSL,Cable, and Broadband wired connections), it makes sense for a cellular carrier (like Verizon) to do this. All that was discussed was the potential for a certain server (let's use Youtube as an example since it belongs to Google) to pay Verizon more money so that it can use it more bandwidth on Verizon Wireless networks. Keep in mind, the amount of bandwidth available on wireless networks is limited, just ask any iPhone User on AT&T's 3G network.

To me, this Google-Verizon deal just seems like a business motive, a good one at that. I doubt Google and Verizon are looking to take over the internet, and I doubt this arrangement is a secret plan to take over the internet.

Also:

HuffPo:

1. Under their proposal, there would be no Net Neutrality on wireless networks -- meaning anything goes, from blocking websites and applications to pay-for-priority treatment.

That's so fucking ignorant and extremely exaggerated . They throw that line in there to scare the reader, but don't bother backing it up.

Also, keep in mind that broadband wired internet connections aren't being touched. Also keep in mind that this is just Verizon who wants to do something on THEIR wireless network. They are not the only wireless provider, and if the customers don't like what they're doing they can easily switch.


Link to CNN's article: http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/05/tech...ules/index.htm

[len56]

boycott if they do it.

BING + COMCAST FER EVERYONE!!!!!!!