11 ms·

Google Public Policy Blog: A joint policy proposal for an open Internet

101 points by pierrefar 16y ago

pierrefar 16y ago
There is also a live blog: http://searchengineland.com/live-blogging-the-google-verizon-net-neutrality-press-conference-48385 http://searchengineland.com/live-blogging-the-google-verizon...
moultano 16y ago
This seems like the sticky bit: Fifth, we want the broadband infrastructure to be a platform for innovation. Therefore, our proposal would allow broadband providers to offer additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services (such as Verizon's FIOS TV) offered today. This means that broadband providers can work with other players to develop new services. 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. The FCC would also monitor the development of these services to make sure they don’t interfere with the continued development of Internet access services. It seems reasonable, but this is a subtle distinction. Prioritizing internet traffic isn't allowed, but selling services that might get priority over internet traffic is, so long as they aren't called "internet." I guess the hope is that the internet will always be important enough that they'll never throttle the whole thing or risk losing business, hence the FCC monitoring bit at the end.
- nanairo 16y ago
  Actually it seems to me that they are already putting the hands forward to make sure Google TV is not covered. Is this possible? Anyone remembers exactly how the Google TV pitch was?
  - Raphael 16y ago
    Google TV adds another layer to whatever video you happen to have, even non-internet television subscriptions.
- ismarc 16y ago
  I think it's easiest to think about in terms of AT&T UVerse (an easy example). You have TV, Internet and VoIP service delivered over the same network connection. TV and VoIP (the VoIP isn't carried over the Internet, instead it's direct to the internal switching network and just happens to use IP for the packets) are independent of Internet access. TV and the VoIP service can be prioritized as needed, but Internet is just Internet and is only prioritized in relation to the other services (i.e., all Internet traffic is prioritized identically for a connection). I actually like this distinction. It will encourage more broadband rollout as companies add more services that use the same infrastructure but aren't used for just "dumb pipes".
  - nanairo 16y ago
    Wouldn't that be really easy to dodge? Something like iPlayer or Hulu integrated with your TV: is that internet or TV? What if you can get the news from a website, or its app? The app "just happens to use IP for the packets".
    - ismarc 16y ago
      You're confusing terms that are independent of what's actually being discussed. If it is Internet based, it's Internet service and prioritized with all other Internet traffic. If it's traffic that does not go over the internet, but instead through another infrastructure (such as a public switched telephone network, or a local multi-cast network for TV service) it gets prioritized however is deemed appropriate. Just because you watch it on your TV doesn't make it separate from Internet service.
      - nanairo 16y ago
        No, sorry. The point made was that a lot of communication is being moved using TCP/IP. So they use the same infrastructure.
    - lagubya 16y ago
      Right. What if Youtube and Hulu start bundling their services as part of Verizon's TV service and thus enjoy higher QoS than other video startups? Thats a loophole now.
- DannoHung 16y ago
  I can understand objections, but what about this: currently, wireless data and voice is carried over the same medium and is subject to the same network overloads. Is it necessarily unreasonable for carriers to give priority to voice data made through telephony protocols (as opposed to data protocols)? I understand a lot of people are approaching this from the perspective of "how would this be abused?", but I think there is also worth in thinking about it from the point of an honest businessman in "how do I make sure my customers are guaranteed good service?"
- api 16y ago
  How's that different from TV? It often goes over the same pipes, but it's not internet.
Ardit20 16y ago
Non-Discrimination Requirement : In providing broadband Internet access service, a provider would be prohibited from engaging in undue discrimination against any lawful Internet content, application, or service in a manner that causes meaningful harm to competition or to users.Prioritization of Internet traffic would be presumed inconsistent with the non-discrimination standard, but the presumption could be rebutted. 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 these additional services, and immediately report if it finds at any time that these services threaten the meaningful availability of broadband Internet access services or have been devised or promoted in a manner designed to evade these consumer protections. Wireless Broadband: Because of the unique technical and operational characteristics of wireless networks, and the competitive and still-developing nature of wireless broadband services, only the transparency principle would apply to wireless broadband at this time. The U.S. Government Accountability Office would report to Congress annually on the continued development and robustness of wireless broadband Internet access services. Case-By-Case Enforcement: The FCC would enforce the consumer protection and nondiscrimination requirements through case-by-case adjudication, but would have no rulemaking 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. The FCC could grant injunctive relief for violations of the consumer protection and non-discrimination provisions. The FCC could impose a forfeiture of up to $2,000,000 for knowing violations of the consumer-protection or non-discrimination provisions. The proposed framework would not affect rights or obligations under existing Federal or State laws that generally apply to businesses, and would not create any new private right of action. All of the above is the most evil thing I have heard being said about the internet!
will_critchlow 16y ago
Why do we anticipate a market failure with net neutrality? If one broadband company throttles services in a way we don't like isn't there a market for one that doesn't? In other words why won't a competitor come along and offer a neutral service if some providers start throttling? I must be missing something in the argument, broadband companies don't have monopolies do they?
- moultano 16y ago
  >broadband companies don't have monopolies do they? In most areas of the US they do.
  - will_critchlow 16y ago
    Ah. In which case regulate the crap out of them :)
- nanairo 16y ago
  If I remember my Economics studies your argument applies to a free market. But broadband companies have a very large initial capital investment which raises the bar for entrants. For wireless you also have a limited number of frequency licenses that limit supply. And when supply is very limited, and you know that it will be very very hard for anyone else to enter the market, then you oligopolies can appear. That said, I don't know the USA market enough to say if they currently have a monopoly or not, or if they are colluding or not.
  - will_critchlow 16y ago
    Yeah. You're right. On reflection I think there is a problem much like termination in mobile phone markets where the only way to reach a subscriber of a particular company is via their network... I think my original comment was just wrong.... Carry on!
nanairo 16y ago
Google agrees that having an open internet has been beneficial to the development of the internet. But somehow this is not needed for wireless broadband because there already is a lot of competition? What???
- wmf 16y ago
  No, they believe that regulation is not needed because they believe that competing wireless broadband providers will be forced to offer openness by the market.
  - nanairo 16y ago
    But if you were correct then the regulation would be irrelevant. It would only make a difference if wireless broadband providers will indeed take advantage of loose network neutrality regulations. On the other hand Google/Verizon agrees that we need to thank the openness of the Internet for the current amazing spread of the net. It seems a bit of a weak argument to be honest.
  - jsz0 16y ago
    Competing wireless providers? In the US we effectively have a duopoly of AT&T and Verizon. The fall off to T-Mobile/Sprint in terms of coverage is dramatic. There may be some spots where you have 4 good choices but for many of us it's AT&T or Verizon if we want acceptable service & speeds. Both AT&T and Verizon mimic each other's pricing structures and policies. We just need to look at Sprint who is trying to offer lower prices and faster speeds yet is still losing money. The duopoly owns the most valuable chip -- coverage. The other players are at a permanent disadvantage because they can't grow with inadequate coverage nor can they address the coverage problem with poor growth.
- yanw 16y ago
  Don't forget that Verizon in the other side in this negotiation.
  - nanairo 16y ago
    You are right, me bad. :)
shimon 16y ago
I think this is Google and Verizon saying "we're afraid some idiots are going write some idiotic laws, so here's a not-completely-idiotic reference implementation to help make sure nobody does anything stupid".
JangoSteve 16y ago
EDIT: My notes below are mostly "what if" scenarios possible with this legislation. But I like this legislation and its intent by and large. These were just the most interesting things for me to comment on. Fifth, we want the broadband infrastructure to be a platform for innovation. Therefore, our proposal would allow broadband providers to offer additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services (such as Verizon's FIOS TV) offered today. moultano already made one observation [1], I'll add that this point could get even stickier. Say Google partners with Verizon on their Google Health service to create a "Health Channel" service on Verizon, which ensures that subscribers get priority access to health information, you know, because that's important stuff, so it's in the consumer's best interest. And let's say it has enough of a differentiation from general internet access that the FCC allows it. Now, you've effectively prioritized Google Health over any other enterprising startups in the online health record space, which goes completely against the intent of this proposed legislation. Ok, so maybe the FCC will have the foresight to disallow this type of additional "service". But I have trouble imagining any type of additional service that doesn't somehow encroach on this problem. Furthermore, I have a little trouble with this bit as well: The FCC would also monitor the development of these services to make sure they don’t interfere with the continued development of Internet access services. So, if some communications company currently provides internet access, but then they find that the "added services over IP" space is more profitible than general internet access, it seems they have two choices. Continue pumping resources into their less profitible internet access service such that the FCC is content, or shut down general access completely and ONLY offer the differentiated services. Did I misinterpret this part? And finally Part 7: Seventh, and 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. Ah, there's where Google's agenda becomes apparent within this legislation (you know, in addition to the fact that they've always been publicly pro-net-neutrality). Of course, I like this part of their agenda, so more power to them. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1588799 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1588799
- illumin8 16y ago
  Precisely. First they say that no broadband provider may provide priority to any given service, then they create a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. Any broadband provider that wants to offer IPTV, IP telephony, or any other new service can just do so and give it priority over other Internet traffic. Google is officially evil.
gojomo 16y ago
What if I wanted to offer the following broadband service for free: • 512Kbps to anywhere • 10Mbps+ to select sites like ESPN, YouTube, and others who agree to subsidize the service costs in proportion to use Why should this be illegal, as long as everything's disclosed up front?
- inklesspen 16y ago
  It can create chilling effects that work to inhibit free speech and put the Internet under the control of ESPN, YouTube, and the other people who subsidize your service.
  - gojomo 16y ago
    A theoretical risk of chilling speech is enough to ban a service that could bring high-speed internet connectivity to underserved communities? Free weekly newspapers exist in most major cities. They are -- gasp! -- entirely advertising-supported. That money could chill speech! It could drive small operators who can't afford to advertise out of business! Perhaps we should ban that dangerous business model. And yet, those weeklies present a lot of interesting commentary. And help a lot of businesses thrive. Turns out, the payola pays for a lot of community benefit. There's a lot of fearmongering going on about how small changes in the internet delivery/pricing model will destroy everything good about the internet. That's irrational paranoia. The internet will survive whatever conspiracies Verizon, AT&T, Disney, and Google dream up -- as long as their backroom strategizing isn't carved into federal law via regulatory capture. And if the incumbents manage to shake down customers for a few more dollars -- that will incent the creation of the next generation of route-around communication technologies.
    - nanairo 16y ago
      I won't argue your actual point, but your examples about free newspapers is wrong. There is much evidence that newspapers because newspapers are heavily dependent on their revenue from advertisement (around 70%-80%), advertisements have a lot of power over them. Examples are when CBS could not broadcast a documentary on the environmental damages done by large industries (we are talking a few decades ago), or when newspapers did not report many of the evidence on tobacco's damage. In Italy Berlusconi even went as far as asking his industry friends to stop advertising in the newspapers who wrote stories against the government in an attempt to shut opposition. So there's ample evidence that the strong dependence on advertisement has damaged free speech. Until the Internet came along though, there was no alternative. As you point out without advertisements' revenues free newspapers would not exist. That is because printing newspapers and broadcasting tv shows is very capital intensive. But the Internet is making publishing costs very low, and hence letting everyone have a word (as shown by blogs or comment boxes such as this).
codemechanic 16y ago
How net neutrality deals with customers who run their personal server at home. My view is that they should also get equal preference as public online service providers. At least they are paying the money for the bandwidth used. Most of the explanations i see in the internet about net neutrality deals with only content downloaded or streamed from public online services. I think it is ironic.
macrael 16y ago
I'm still not entirely clear about the implications of this. Does this mean that Verizon can prioritize V-Cast over "Internet" when sending data to their phones? That seems like a big win for Verizon. They've always promoted their psudo-internet. Does V-Cast ship on Droids?
jsz0 16y ago
Sixth, 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." Not anymore. We'll probably get 4G fairly soon just because 3G capacity is already getting taxed but going forward wireless providers can simply gimp traffic to save money on infrastructure improvements. What incentive is there to push forward on 5G when you can just go tell the network engineers to adjust a few variables and save you billions of dollars? Of course if Google or some other gigantic company wants to pay to have that variable turned down less aggressively that seems to be fair game. I can't believe how naive/dishonest Google is being about this.
anigbrowl 16y ago
Do not want. To my mind this does not address the issues honestly. The basic issue: Laying cable is expensive, but the marginal cost of fiber over bandwidth can be driven down in a variety of ways, and we have abundant fiber and rapid progress in photonics improving it at least as fast as Moore's law. Wireless spectrum, by contrast, is horrifically expensive. These two companies own a lot of both, and would like to trade the uncertainty of the auction model for a set of agreed industrial targets. Some parts are a joke, like the FCC having the authority to fine companies up to $2m after investigating bandwidth abuses on a case-by-case basis. Verizon has annual revenues of about $27 billion; a $2m cap is about as imposing as a nerf gun.

101 points by pierrefar 16y ago

There is also a live blog: http://searchengineland.com/live-blogging-the-google-verizon-net-neutrality-press-conference-48385 http://searchengineland.com/live-blogging-the-google-verizon...

moultano 16y ago

This seems like the sticky bit: Fifth, we want the broadband infrastructure to be a platform for innovation. Therefore, our proposal would allow broadband providers to offer additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services (such as Verizon's FIOS TV) offered today. This means that broadband providers can work with other players to develop new services. 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. The FCC would also monitor the development of these services to make sure they don’t interfere with the continued development of Internet access services. It seems reasonable, but this is a subtle distinction. Prioritizing internet traffic isn't allowed, but selling services that might get priority over internet traffic is, so long as they aren't called "internet." I guess the hope is that the internet will always be important enough that they'll never throttle the whole thing or risk losing business, hence the FCC monitoring bit at the end.

nanairo 16y ago
Actually it seems to me that they are already putting the hands forward to make sure Google TV is not covered. Is this possible? Anyone remembers exactly how the Google TV pitch was?
- Raphael 16y ago
  Google TV adds another layer to whatever video you happen to have, even non-internet television subscriptions.
ismarc 16y ago
I think it's easiest to think about in terms of AT&T UVerse (an easy example). You have TV, Internet and VoIP service delivered over the same network connection. TV and VoIP (the VoIP isn't carried over the Internet, instead it's direct to the internal switching network and just happens to use IP for the packets) are independent of Internet access. TV and the VoIP service can be prioritized as needed, but Internet is just Internet and is only prioritized in relation to the other services (i.e., all Internet traffic is prioritized identically for a connection). I actually like this distinction. It will encourage more broadband rollout as companies add more services that use the same infrastructure but aren't used for just "dumb pipes".
- nanairo 16y ago
  Wouldn't that be really easy to dodge? Something like iPlayer or Hulu integrated with your TV: is that internet or TV? What if you can get the news from a website, or its app? The app "just happens to use IP for the packets".
  - ismarc 16y ago
    You're confusing terms that are independent of what's actually being discussed. If it is Internet based, it's Internet service and prioritized with all other Internet traffic. If it's traffic that does not go over the internet, but instead through another infrastructure (such as a public switched telephone network, or a local multi-cast network for TV service) it gets prioritized however is deemed appropriate. Just because you watch it on your TV doesn't make it separate from Internet service.
    - nanairo 16y ago
      No, sorry. The point made was that a lot of communication is being moved using TCP/IP. So they use the same infrastructure.
  - lagubya 16y ago
    Right. What if Youtube and Hulu start bundling their services as part of Verizon's TV service and thus enjoy higher QoS than other video startups? Thats a loophole now.
DannoHung 16y ago
I can understand objections, but what about this: currently, wireless data and voice is carried over the same medium and is subject to the same network overloads. Is it necessarily unreasonable for carriers to give priority to voice data made through telephony protocols (as opposed to data protocols)? I understand a lot of people are approaching this from the perspective of "how would this be abused?", but I think there is also worth in thinking about it from the point of an honest businessman in "how do I make sure my customers are guaranteed good service?"
api 16y ago
How's that different from TV? It often goes over the same pipes, but it's not internet.

Ardit20 16y ago

Non-Discrimination Requirement : In providing broadband Internet access service, a provider would be prohibited from engaging in undue discrimination against any lawful Internet content, application, or service in a manner that causes meaningful harm to competition or to users.Prioritization of Internet traffic would be presumed inconsistent with the non-discrimination standard, but the presumption could be rebutted. 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 these additional services, and immediately report if it finds at any time that these services threaten the meaningful availability of broadband Internet access services or have been devised or promoted in a manner designed to evade these consumer protections. Wireless Broadband: Because of the unique technical and operational characteristics of wireless networks, and the competitive and still-developing nature of wireless broadband services, only the transparency principle would apply to wireless broadband at this time. The U.S. Government Accountability Office would report to Congress annually on the continued development and robustness of wireless broadband Internet access services. Case-By-Case Enforcement: The FCC would enforce the consumer protection and nondiscrimination requirements through case-by-case adjudication, but would have no rulemaking 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. The FCC could grant injunctive relief for violations of the consumer protection and non-discrimination provisions. The FCC could impose a forfeiture of up to $2,000,000 for knowing violations of the consumer-protection or non-discrimination provisions. The proposed framework would not affect rights or obligations under existing Federal or State laws that generally apply to businesses, and would not create any new private right of action. All of the above is the most evil thing I have heard being said about the internet!

will_critchlow 16y ago

Why do we anticipate a market failure with net neutrality? If one broadband company throttles services in a way we don't like isn't there a market for one that doesn't? In other words why won't a competitor come along and offer a neutral service if some providers start throttling? I must be missing something in the argument, broadband companies don't have monopolies do they?

moultano 16y ago
>broadband companies don't have monopolies do they? In most areas of the US they do.
- will_critchlow 16y ago
  Ah. In which case regulate the crap out of them :)
nanairo 16y ago
If I remember my Economics studies your argument applies to a free market. But broadband companies have a very large initial capital investment which raises the bar for entrants. For wireless you also have a limited number of frequency licenses that limit supply. And when supply is very limited, and you know that it will be very very hard for anyone else to enter the market, then you oligopolies can appear. That said, I don't know the USA market enough to say if they currently have a monopoly or not, or if they are colluding or not.
- will_critchlow 16y ago
  Yeah. You're right. On reflection I think there is a problem much like termination in mobile phone markets where the only way to reach a subscriber of a particular company is via their network... I think my original comment was just wrong.... Carry on!

nanairo 16y ago

Google agrees that having an open internet has been beneficial to the development of the internet. But somehow this is not needed for wireless broadband because there already is a lot of competition? What???

wmf 16y ago
No, they believe that regulation is not needed because they believe that competing wireless broadband providers will be forced to offer openness by the market.
- nanairo 16y ago
  But if you were correct then the regulation would be irrelevant. It would only make a difference if wireless broadband providers will indeed take advantage of loose network neutrality regulations. On the other hand Google/Verizon agrees that we need to thank the openness of the Internet for the current amazing spread of the net. It seems a bit of a weak argument to be honest.
- jsz0 16y ago
  Competing wireless providers? In the US we effectively have a duopoly of AT&T and Verizon. The fall off to T-Mobile/Sprint in terms of coverage is dramatic. There may be some spots where you have 4 good choices but for many of us it's AT&T or Verizon if we want acceptable service & speeds. Both AT&T and Verizon mimic each other's pricing structures and policies. We just need to look at Sprint who is trying to offer lower prices and faster speeds yet is still losing money. The duopoly owns the most valuable chip -- coverage. The other players are at a permanent disadvantage because they can't grow with inadequate coverage nor can they address the coverage problem with poor growth.
yanw 16y ago
Don't forget that Verizon in the other side in this negotiation.
- nanairo 16y ago
  You are right, me bad. :)

shimon 16y ago

I think this is Google and Verizon saying "we're afraid some idiots are going write some idiotic laws, so here's a not-completely-idiotic reference implementation to help make sure nobody does anything stupid".

JangoSteve 16y ago

EDIT: My notes below are mostly "what if" scenarios possible with this legislation. But I like this legislation and its intent by and large. These were just the most interesting things for me to comment on. Fifth, we want the broadband infrastructure to be a platform for innovation. Therefore, our proposal would allow broadband providers to offer additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services (such as Verizon's FIOS TV) offered today. moultano already made one observation [1], I'll add that this point could get even stickier. Say Google partners with Verizon on their Google Health service to create a "Health Channel" service on Verizon, which ensures that subscribers get priority access to health information, you know, because that's important stuff, so it's in the consumer's best interest. And let's say it has enough of a differentiation from general internet access that the FCC allows it. Now, you've effectively prioritized Google Health over any other enterprising startups in the online health record space, which goes completely against the intent of this proposed legislation. Ok, so maybe the FCC will have the foresight to disallow this type of additional "service". But I have trouble imagining any type of additional service that doesn't somehow encroach on this problem. Furthermore, I have a little trouble with this bit as well: The FCC would also monitor the development of these services to make sure they don’t interfere with the continued development of Internet access services. So, if some communications company currently provides internet access, but then they find that the "added services over IP" space is more profitible than general internet access, it seems they have two choices. Continue pumping resources into their less profitible internet access service such that the FCC is content, or shut down general access completely and ONLY offer the differentiated services. Did I misinterpret this part? And finally Part 7: Seventh, and 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. Ah, there's where Google's agenda becomes apparent within this legislation (you know, in addition to the fact that they've always been publicly pro-net-neutrality). Of course, I like this part of their agenda, so more power to them. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1588799 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1588799

illumin8 16y ago
Precisely. First they say that no broadband provider may provide priority to any given service, then they create a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. Any broadband provider that wants to offer IPTV, IP telephony, or any other new service can just do so and give it priority over other Internet traffic. Google is officially evil.

gojomo 16y ago

What if I wanted to offer the following broadband service for free: • 512Kbps to anywhere • 10Mbps+ to select sites like ESPN, YouTube, and others who agree to subsidize the service costs in proportion to use Why should this be illegal, as long as everything's disclosed up front?

inklesspen 16y ago
It can create chilling effects that work to inhibit free speech and put the Internet under the control of ESPN, YouTube, and the other people who subsidize your service.
- gojomo 16y ago
  A theoretical risk of chilling speech is enough to ban a service that could bring high-speed internet connectivity to underserved communities? Free weekly newspapers exist in most major cities. They are -- gasp! -- entirely advertising-supported. That money could chill speech! It could drive small operators who can't afford to advertise out of business! Perhaps we should ban that dangerous business model. And yet, those weeklies present a lot of interesting commentary. And help a lot of businesses thrive. Turns out, the payola pays for a lot of community benefit. There's a lot of fearmongering going on about how small changes in the internet delivery/pricing model will destroy everything good about the internet. That's irrational paranoia. The internet will survive whatever conspiracies Verizon, AT&T, Disney, and Google dream up -- as long as their backroom strategizing isn't carved into federal law via regulatory capture. And if the incumbents manage to shake down customers for a few more dollars -- that will incent the creation of the next generation of route-around communication technologies.
  - nanairo 16y ago
    I won't argue your actual point, but your examples about free newspapers is wrong. There is much evidence that newspapers because newspapers are heavily dependent on their revenue from advertisement (around 70%-80%), advertisements have a lot of power over them. Examples are when CBS could not broadcast a documentary on the environmental damages done by large industries (we are talking a few decades ago), or when newspapers did not report many of the evidence on tobacco's damage. In Italy Berlusconi even went as far as asking his industry friends to stop advertising in the newspapers who wrote stories against the government in an attempt to shut opposition. So there's ample evidence that the strong dependence on advertisement has damaged free speech. Until the Internet came along though, there was no alternative. As you point out without advertisements' revenues free newspapers would not exist. That is because printing newspapers and broadcasting tv shows is very capital intensive. But the Internet is making publishing costs very low, and hence letting everyone have a word (as shown by blogs or comment boxes such as this).

codemechanic 16y ago

How net neutrality deals with customers who run their personal server at home. My view is that they should also get equal preference as public online service providers. At least they are paying the money for the bandwidth used. Most of the explanations i see in the internet about net neutrality deals with only content downloaded or streamed from public online services. I think it is ironic.

macrael 16y ago

I'm still not entirely clear about the implications of this. Does this mean that Verizon can prioritize V-Cast over "Internet" when sending data to their phones? That seems like a big win for Verizon. They've always promoted their psudo-internet. Does V-Cast ship on Droids?

jsz0 16y ago

Sixth, 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." Not anymore. We'll probably get 4G fairly soon just because 3G capacity is already getting taxed but going forward wireless providers can simply gimp traffic to save money on infrastructure improvements. What incentive is there to push forward on 5G when you can just go tell the network engineers to adjust a few variables and save you billions of dollars? Of course if Google or some other gigantic company wants to pay to have that variable turned down less aggressively that seems to be fair game. I can't believe how naive/dishonest Google is being about this.

anigbrowl 16y ago

Do not want. To my mind this does not address the issues honestly. The basic issue: Laying cable is expensive, but the marginal cost of fiber over bandwidth can be driven down in a variety of ways, and we have abundant fiber and rapid progress in photonics improving it at least as fast as Moore's law. Wireless spectrum, by contrast, is horrifically expensive. These two companies own a lot of both, and would like to trade the uncertainty of the auction model for a set of agreed industrial targets. Some parts are a joke, like the FCC having the authority to fine companies up to $2m after investigating bandwidth abuses on a case-by-case basis. Verizon has annual revenues of about $27 billion; a $2m cap is about as imposing as a nerf gun.