4 ms·

"So, for example, broadband providers could offer a special gaming channel, or a more secure banking service, or a home health monitoring capability – so long a

by prat 16y ago

"So, for example, broadband providers could offer a special gaming channel, or a more secure banking service, or a home health monitoring capability – so long as such offerings are separate and apart from the public Internet." Can somebody explain? Does this mean verizon would be able to sell special secure service to say, bank of america for its public site? What is the meaning of "separate from public internet"? doesn't this eventually mean that by paying verizon, BOA would be able to offer secure service than a bank who did not buy the "special service" from verizon? Am I missing something here? If this is the case, what is to stop verizon from going a step ahead from offering "secure" to "faster" service to those who care to pay. then where goes net-neutrality.?

pilif 16y ago
here in switzerland some of the DSL providers also provide their own set-top box that provides access to TV channels. Which is funny because at first the Cable TV companies brought internet to the households and now the phone companies are bringing TV. Anyways: While the bandwidth for internet is available at bandwidth from 300/100 kbit/s up to 20/1.2 Mbit/s, the TV functionality uses bandwidth independent from those plans allowing even the 300Kbit/s customers to watch TV in acceptable quality. If what this Google proposal means is something like that, we really shouldn't care. This is not about building a private internet, this is about adding additional (and voluntary) services to the existing internet connection.
- mdwrigh2 16y ago
  This is what its supposed to be about, but the worry is that the television companies that are also providing internet, will just create new 'services', that are effectively a non-net-neutral internet.
  - msg 16y ago
    They're called walled gardens. The real internet considers them damage and routes around them. Don't be concerned.
sp332 16y ago
If the special treatment that BoA pays for does not degrade my (or anyone else's) internet performance, and does not degrade the speed or accessibility of other bank websites, I don't mind. I think the "separate and apart" means this goes further - I can't just type https://www.bankofamerica.com/ https://www.bankofamerica.com/ and get the special service.
- prat 16y ago
  I understand.. so yes - we as users won't mind. but what if I were another bank? The security upgrades that I would normally pay Infosys to do for me now no longer give me a competitive advantage over BoA. I'd have to pay verizon in addition to get the same "special service" to offer the same security (replace with speed/features etc.) right?
  - sp332 16y ago
    Your Infosys stuff will still work - but BoA may be able to add additional end-to-end or last-mile advantages above that. I think (though I'm not sure) that part of this deal precludes exclusivity - BoA cannot prevent another bank from getting the same service for the same money.
    - prat 16y ago
      That makes sense.. so it boils down to the ban on "exclusivity" - if it wasn't for that, then for sure there is no net neutrality.But even with that in there, I am sure it won't be difficult to find a conflict of interest given enough time and freedom for verizon to strategize. For a hypothetical example, what if verizon itself spawns a paypal like website using its own secure service for free for which others have to pay?
  - nanairo 16y ago
    Yep, that's pretty much what it is. The words "upgrade" or "in addition" are purely PR: what is the difference between slowing down website A but not B, or increasing the bandwidth for website B but not A? I'd imagine that in the USA you'll get faster broadband in the future: either the "normal" usage gets redefined each time, or you could be stuck with "normal" being the situation in 2010 for the next decade or more.

by prat 16y ago

pilif 16y ago

here in switzerland some of the DSL providers also provide their own set-top box that provides access to TV channels. Which is funny because at first the Cable TV companies brought internet to the households and now the phone companies are bringing TV. Anyways: While the bandwidth for internet is available at bandwidth from 300/100 kbit/s up to 20/1.2 Mbit/s, the TV functionality uses bandwidth independent from those plans allowing even the 300Kbit/s customers to watch TV in acceptable quality. If what this Google proposal means is something like that, we really shouldn't care. This is not about building a private internet, this is about adding additional (and voluntary) services to the existing internet connection.

mdwrigh2 16y ago
This is what its supposed to be about, but the worry is that the television companies that are also providing internet, will just create new 'services', that are effectively a non-net-neutral internet.
- msg 16y ago
  They're called walled gardens. The real internet considers them damage and routes around them. Don't be concerned.

sp332 16y ago

If the special treatment that BoA pays for does not degrade my (or anyone else's) internet performance, and does not degrade the speed or accessibility of other bank websites, I don't mind. I think the "separate and apart" means this goes further - I can't just type https://www.bankofamerica.com/ https://www.bankofamerica.com/ and get the special service.

prat 16y ago
I understand.. so yes - we as users won't mind. but what if I were another bank? The security upgrades that I would normally pay Infosys to do for me now no longer give me a competitive advantage over BoA. I'd have to pay verizon in addition to get the same "special service" to offer the same security (replace with speed/features etc.) right?
- sp332 16y ago
  Your Infosys stuff will still work - but BoA may be able to add additional end-to-end or last-mile advantages above that. I think (though I'm not sure) that part of this deal precludes exclusivity - BoA cannot prevent another bank from getting the same service for the same money.
  - prat 16y ago
    That makes sense.. so it boils down to the ban on "exclusivity" - if it wasn't for that, then for sure there is no net neutrality.But even with that in there, I am sure it won't be difficult to find a conflict of interest given enough time and freedom for verizon to strategize. For a hypothetical example, what if verizon itself spawns a paypal like website using its own secure service for free for which others have to pay?
- nanairo 16y ago
  Yep, that's pretty much what it is. The words "upgrade" or "in addition" are purely PR: what is the difference between slowing down website A but not B, or increasing the bandwidth for website B but not A? I'd imagine that in the USA you'll get faster broadband in the future: either the "normal" usage gets redefined each time, or you could be stuck with "normal" being the situation in 2010 for the next decade or more.