3 ms·

It's refreshing to read more of reality-based examination of last week's announcement.

alecco 16y ago
I'm sorry, but who said the current situation is network neutral? There have been plenty of crazy situations related to throttling (like Comcast) and deep packet inspection and content modification (like the big case in UK.) It's a legally grey area where different groups are asking different things. EFF, EPIC, and other civil rights related groups worldwide want content non-discrimination and permission of tethering for wireless devices. The telcos want carte blanche to block or throttle as they please. And I bet 3 letter agencies (and their counter-parties in other countries) are siding with the telcos for their own reasons. Google changed their stance at least on content discrimination on wireless. A very meaningful example Skype calls or competing video distribution platforms. Google can't represent those competitors on this discussion. In particular if they are partners with telcos with their Android system. That's where the outrage comes from.
- nervechannel 16y ago
  "I'm sorry, but who said the current situation is network neutral?" Err, that's exactly the point. Net neutrality already doesn't exist in a lot of ways, the Google proposal is seen by some (e.g. TorrentFreak) as an attempt to regulate something that can already be arbitrarily done in an unregulated way. You can't take away a freedom or right that doesn't already exist.
  - alecco 16y ago
    As I said in another comment, if my 3G/4G service provider sold me the service as "X GB per month" without clarifying it can't carry voice or competing services currently it's unlawful and other companies affected could sue them. Or a class action for deceitful advertising. Telcos want to have legal cover for that. That's new.
    - spinchange 16y ago
      They do clarify in the fine print of their terms and conditions which customers agree to if they're using the service. So, it's not unlawful just because you don't agree with it, because you've already agreed to it. There is nothing new here in the Google / Verizon proposal. They can't be both killing wireless net neutrality and seeking 'legal cover' for already doing it, especially when it didn't exist because the current status quo of 'packet discrimination' on those networks isn't illegal.

I'm sorry, but who said the current situation is network neutral? There have been plenty of crazy situations related to throttling (like Comcast) and deep packet inspection and content modification (like the big case in UK.) It's a legally grey area where different groups are asking different things. EFF, EPIC, and other civil rights related groups worldwide want content non-discrimination and permission of tethering for wireless devices. The telcos want carte blanche to block or throttle as they please. And I bet 3 letter agencies (and their counter-parties in other countries) are siding with the telcos for their own reasons. Google changed their stance at least on content discrimination on wireless. A very meaningful example Skype calls or competing video distribution platforms. Google can't represent those competitors on this discussion. In particular if they are partners with telcos with their Android system. That's where the outrage comes from.

nervechannel 16y ago
"I'm sorry, but who said the current situation is network neutral?" Err, that's exactly the point. Net neutrality already doesn't exist in a lot of ways, the Google proposal is seen by some (e.g. TorrentFreak) as an attempt to regulate something that can already be arbitrarily done in an unregulated way. You can't take away a freedom or right that doesn't already exist.
- alecco 16y ago
  As I said in another comment, if my 3G/4G service provider sold me the service as "X GB per month" without clarifying it can't carry voice or competing services currently it's unlawful and other companies affected could sue them. Or a class action for deceitful advertising. Telcos want to have legal cover for that. That's new.
  - spinchange 16y ago
    They do clarify in the fine print of their terms and conditions which customers agree to if they're using the service. So, it's not unlawful just because you don't agree with it, because you've already agreed to it. There is nothing new here in the Google / Verizon proposal. They can't be both killing wireless net neutrality and seeking 'legal cover' for already doing it, especially when it didn't exist because the current status quo of 'packet discrimination' on those networks isn't illegal.