Google Blogoscoped

Forum

Google + Verizon on an open internet (official)  (View post)

DPic [PersonRank 10]

Monday, August 9, 2010
7 years ago13,796 views

googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.co ...

<<It is imperative that we find ways to protect the future openness of the Internet and encourage the rapid deployment of broadband. Verizon and Google are pleased to discuss the principled compromise our companies have developed over the last year concerning the thorny issue of “network neutrality.”>>

DPic [PersonRank 10]

7 years ago #

Free press: 300,000 Call on Google: Don’t Sell Out the Open Internet

freepress.net/press-release/20 ...

<<“Google's self-proclaimed motto is ‘don't be evil,’ but Google is about to cut a deal with Verizon that would end the Internet as we know it,” said Becky Bond, political director of CREDO Action. “Google’s corporate leadership needs to listen to its users and return to its roots as a strong defender of Net Neutrality.”>>

TOMHTML [PersonRank 10]

7 years ago #

What is new, finally? Anyone can sum up, please?

George R [PersonRank 10]

7 years ago #

The below quotes regarding both the FCC and the FUSF are from the previously mentioned Google Public Policy blog post by Alan Davidson, Google director of public policy and Tom Tauke, Verizon executive vice president of public affairs, policy, and communications.
googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.co ...

It is nice that Google and Verizon want to expand the FCC jurisdiction beyond the United States. Are Google and Verizon going to pay the extra cost in expanding the FCC and adding responsibilities?

"Our proposal would now make those principles fully enforceable at the FCC."

"Fourth, because of the confusion about the FCC’s authority following the Comcast court decision, our proposal spells out the FCC’s role and authority in the broadband space. In addition to creating enforceable consumer protection and nondiscrimination standards that go beyond the FCC’s preexisting consumer safeguards, the proposal also provides for a new enforcement mechanism for the FCC to use. Specifically, the FCC would enforce these openness policies on a case-by-case basis, using a complaint-driven process. The FCC could move swiftly to stop a practice that violates these safeguards, and it could impose a penalty of up to $2 million on bad actors."

"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."

"We believe this policy framework properly empowers consumers and gives the FCC a role carefully tailored for the new world of broadband, while also allowing broadband providers the flexibility to manage their networks and provide new types of online services."

--

"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."

The Federal Universal Service Fund (FUSF) is a fund in the United States that subsidises some aspects of telecommunications. Often the phone companies and ISPs are either direct or indirect beneficiaries of this. The FUSF is supposed to be funded by the telephone companies. Many such companies, including Verizon, itemize FUSF on consumer statements as if it is a required consumer tax, which it is not. If Google and Verizon think this should be used for broadband, it should be made clear that they fund it themselves. It should be enforceably put in writing that such contributions not be paid by consumers, customers, or taxpayers (i.e. governments).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universa ...

TOMHTML [PersonRank 10]

7 years ago #

<< ensure that consumers have access to all legal content on the Internet >>
The biggest problem here is "legal". Does it mean they could block the torrent network because it contains several "illegal" files? Does it mean they could block anything that is illegal in one State, but not in another?

DPic [PersonRank 10]

7 years ago #

More discussion here:
reddit.com/r/technology/commen ...

Absolutely. This allows them to restrict access to anything legally questionable. Not good enough for a primary framework. Anything that allows for such ambiguity is dangerous. This is why the DMCA and other legislation has been so terrible.

There is simply too much uncertainty here. Google needs to know how important net neutrality is to the public, and we need to make sure it doesn't get watered down. For a start, wireless is off the hook entirely:

<<under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency requirement. In addition, the Government Accountability Office would be required to report to Congress annually on developments in the wireless broadband marketplace, and whether or not current policies are working to protect consumers.>>

John [PersonRank 0]

7 years ago #

So, WWBA?
...
I mean, 'Would Wikileaks Be Accessible' to US citizens under such law?

Jérôme [PersonRank 10]

7 years ago #

Why do they want to cap penalties at 2M USD? It isn't very dissuasive for ISPs, is it?

DPic [PersonRank 10]

7 years ago #

[put at-character here]John, that's a concern other's have brought up as well. This is not a free and open internet.

[put at-character here]Jérôme, exactly.

Juha-Matti Laurio [PersonRank 10]

7 years ago #

Also
'Consumer advocates protest Google-Verizon Internet partnership':
content.usatoday.com/communiti ...

TOMHTML [PersonRank 10]

7 years ago #

Consumer Advocates protest against everything. It shouldn't even be mentionned here, that makes too much advertisement for them.

Juha-Matti Laurio [PersonRank 10]

7 years ago #

The Guardian's coverage:
guardian.co.uk/world/richard-a ...

Above 12 comments were made in the forum before this was blogged,

Jon [PersonRank 0]

7 years ago #

People should remember that it's just a "framework agreement" that was hashed between two opposing interests, some concessions were made but it's nothing official nor final.

Chiianna [PersonRank 0]

7 years ago #

This is what kills me, people are upset about the use of the word lawful. It would be stupid for them to say anything about unlawful/illegal activities. All the people that are up in arms about that should walk into a police station and say "we want the right to break the law" and see where that gets them.

I got to agree with Jon, this isn't binding, it is just jump starting the discussion and forcing the hands of other companies and the government to get this settled.

The interesting part is that it was two companies with apposing interests that worked on this. They have done more for moving this discussion forward then anyone else has done in the past year.

Seth Finkelstein [PersonRank 10]

7 years ago #

I believe ISP's can *already* block Wikileaks if they wish.

"Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material"

www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht ...

   No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held
   liable on of account

   (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to
   or availability of material that the provider or user considers to
   be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent,
   harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material
   is constitutionally protected; or ...

Wikileaks arguably qualifies.

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

7 years ago #

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is weighing in with an analysis:
eff.org/deeplinks/2010/08/goog ...

A breakdown is delivered via their headlines:

* Limited FCC Jurisdiction — Good
* Standard-Setting Bodies — Interesting
* Reasonable Network management, Additional Online Services — Troubling
* “Lawful” Content and Wireless Exclusions — Fail

Juha-Matti Laurio [PersonRank 10]

7 years ago #

Via /.

thelessonapplied.com/2010/08/1 ...

mbegin [PersonRank 10]

7 years ago #

Facts about our network neutrality policy proposal (Official Google Blog):

<< Over the past few days there’s been a lot of discussion surrounding our announcement of a policy proposal on network neutrality we put together with Verizon. On balance, we believe this proposal represents real progress on what has become a very contentious issue, and we think it could help move the network neutrality debate forward constructively.

We don’t expect everyone to agree with every aspect of our proposal, but there has been a number of inaccuracies about it, and we do want to separate fact from fiction... >>

googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/0 ...

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

7 years ago #

Back in 2009* the author of this Google blog post said that when he joined the company, "there was also very much a sense that there were some real opportunities, with Congress and the FCC, to further some open platform models, primarily on the wireless side" and that they "could bring the ethos of the wireline Internet into the wireless space". Now, the wireless ethos seems to be differentiated from the wireline one (at least with neutrality apparently), in what Richard Whitt calls "the spirit of compromise". Is this a correct reading or can someone clarify?

* circleid.com/posts/20090129_in ...

George R [PersonRank 10]

7 years ago #

Sara Jerome reports in the Hillicon Valley that four US congressmen sent a letter to the FCC.
thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-val ...

Reps. Edward Markey, Anna Eshoo, Jay Inslee and Mike Doyle wrote:

"Rather than expansion upon a proposal by two large communications companies with a vested financial interest in the outcome, formal FCC action is needed."

"The FCC must have oversight authority for broadband access services."

"Paid prioritization would close the open Internet."

"Wired and wireless services should have a common regulatory framework and rules."

"Broad 'managed services' exceptions would swallow open Internet rules."

The Googleplex is in Rep. Eschoo's district.

This thread is locked as it's old... but you can create a new thread in the forum. 

Forum home

Advertisement

 
Blog  |  Forum     more >> Archive | Feed | Google's blogs | About
Advertisement

 

This site unofficially covers Google™ and more with some rights reserved. Join our forum!