Verizon and Google Offer Up Net Neutrality Truce 115
When it comes to net neutrality, can we get along? Google and Verizon, antagonists on the question yet partners in Droid, say yes. The two companies have even teamed up to send the FCC ideas on how to handle network management disputes. 'Google/Verizon say that the Internet should function as an "open platform." That means, to them, that "when a person accesses cyberspace, he or she should be able to connect with any other person that he or she wants to—and that other person should be able to receive his or her message," they write. The 'Net should operate as a place where no "central authority" can make rules that prescribe the possible, and where entrepreneurs and network providers are able to "innovate without permission."'"
Re:Throttling? (Score:5, Insightful)
A throttled Internet is still not a neutral network.
Actually, if it's throttling based on overall traffic, and not port/application-based, then yes, I'd say it's neutral.
Too vague to be of value. (Score:4, Insightful)
"That means, to them, that "when a person accesses cyberspace, he or she should be able to connect with any other person that he or she wants to—and that other person should be able to receive his or her message,""
This statement has no meaning if they don't include protocol in it.
Do they mean "he or she should be able to connect with any other person that he or she wants to... by whatever means they choose" or
"he or she should be able to connect with any other person that he or she wants to... as long as they're using only the tools and methods we tell them to"
And as someone else already pointed out, they don't mention speed either. The devil's in the details, after all.
It's an interesting start, but this is what people have come to expect from the internet in the first place. The part I worry about isn't whether there or not people will be able to reach each other. It's how the big networks will change to rules and set up restrictions, yet still convince people that what they are getting is still an 'open internet'.
collusion (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, they're trying to come up with something that looks open on its face, but on closer inspection keeps all the power in the hands of private interests they can control. They realized their petty squabbling could both both their businesses in jeopardy so they're pretending to get along like a big house on fire now and praying that the FCC finds something else to pick on while they muster their political allies.
It's a tactic designed expressly to weaken the FCC's support in Congress by appearing to be the victims of the FCC "control freaks", while they, the benevolent corporate interests, only want the lowest prices and best services for you, the vulnerable consumer. Cue media relations campaign in 5...4...3...
Re:Throttling? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, if it's throttling based on overall traffic, and not port/application-based, then yes, I'd say it's neutral.
Make that port/application/end-point and I'll agree.
Why should my HTTP packets cost more than those from one of Verizon's preferred partners?
Re:Throttling? (Score:5, Insightful)
I fear that everyone is losing sight of the original problem: that websites could pay ISPs to have their accessibility increased to that ISP's customers, or pay to have their competitors slowed, or even that ISPs might start racketeering sites to protect them from being slowed to the point of inaccessibility, not cut off.
At some point, the telco lobby seems to have tricked everyone into forgetting that this is what we were originally upset about, not the more drastic idea of having access cut off completely for some reason. Simple QoS based on volume obviously makes sense, and censorship is a serious issue in net neutrality too, but we've still left a very large door open for Big Telecommunications to exploit; they can still, for example, make Google unbearably slow and Bing super-fast to manipulate their customers' usage habits if Ballmer forks over enough cash. This declaration says nothing about that kind of behaviour!
Perhaps it gets overlooked so much because it's difficult to create a car/road traffic analogy that expresses it.
Re:Innovate without permission (Score:2, Insightful)
"Innovate without permission" is an excellent expression, although not completely descriptive of the goal in this case.
What's sad is that it has to be said at all -- it implies that people need permission before molding technology and science in a way that serves the public good. I shouldn't have to ask someone for permission to learn more about the world around me and put that learning in service of the greater good. And neither should anybody else. Anywhere. Ever.
Re:Throttling? (Score:3, Insightful)
Also if there is throttling another thing that I didn't think about is that you can exercise control. The government can start to make laws, like any anti-government or "terrorist" websites get a lower priority. Not that I'm a terrorist, or that I am interested in the Klu Klux Klan or anything, but they have a right to their opinion as long as they aren't hurting anyone.
The government also often goes on anti-porn crusades to try to attract the religious right. They could legislate that all ISPs need to throttle down any traffic to known porn sites (from their list) to be super slow. Basically throttling can be used to control content on the internet. We have already seen governments trying to use a blacklist.
Also look at some of the anti net neutrality opponents (ie the RIAA, etc...). By using throttling they can control who is permitted to distribute their content. Anyone not "authorized" or maybe even someone "authorized" trying to negotiate a better deal will have their traffic throttled so slow, they won't be able to deliver content. Or even more, the RIAA can pay so that it's music sites get higher priority. An independent music site may not be able to pay, so the content is so slow that no one bothers. Then the independent artists are forced to sign on with the RIAA to get online distribution.
Anti Net Neutrality is all about control, no matter what anyone says. It is the last chance to control the internet. With net neutrality it remains as it is, largely without control. There will be red light districts, fringe opinions, government opinions, etc... all with equal access. There will be "legal" places to get content and "illegal" places to get content. And if the "legal" places try to rip consumers off they will be to the "illegal" places.
Another view on Cell Phones (Score:4, Insightful)
Also once you buy a phone, you are locked into a network. If they screw you over for two years, to leave you will have to pay termination fees, and get a new phone on your new network. You are basically locked in. Some people sell unlocked phones, but they are often locked into one network. Even T-Mobile/ATT use different 3G frequencies. Verizon/Sprint do not use the same hardware either. So cell companies aren't in competition with each other.
With net neutrality 3rd parties can make devices that use all the cell networks (just the 3g parts, not the voice) and use VOIP. Now, Apple smacks down most VOIP apps in the apple store (no doubt at the request of ATT). But even if they didn't, the phone company could probably use deep packet inspection to find other people's VOIP packets an dmake them lower priority. OR just block all VOIP packets except for the phone company's own. IF there is net neutrality then they can't. So you could make 3rd party devices that link to everyone's 3g network and use VOIP. Then carriers would be forced to compete on price, and network quality. Customer service would improve because dissatisfied customers would just leave....
But in defeating net neutrality things can mostly stay the same....
Re:Throttling? (Score:3, Insightful)
But still if it was possible to make a perfect law, I'd be okay with throttling. Since it probably isn't, I think we have to go with net neutrality.
Get 'er done! (Score:3, Insightful)
It's seriously important to get a net neutrality arrangement worked out in the US and carved in stone before the neo-conservative elements get back in control. It's a sad fact that the conservative side of politics there has been taken over by a bunch of religious fanatics and fascists who want nothing to do with such traditional conservative values as freedom from the intrusion of government into one's private life. Net neutrality was headed for the scrap heap under the previous administration, and it's far from assured under this one.
It's also an unfortunate fact that the US still has enough financial clout to enforce its rules on other countries. The up-side of this situation is that if the US enacts strong net neutrality legislation, most European countries will happily fall in line, and the ones like England and Italy, which are flirting with harsh internet laws, will have to go along. Even China will have an increasingly-difficult time keeping its "Green Wall" intact.
Any anti-neutrality tech... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually it's a pass underneath during a blitz (Score:3, Insightful)
Sometimes corporations do the right thing in their own interest. I think is far more subtler than a business throwing up their hands and giving up, this is a business basically saying "we've always been at war with eastasia. Eurasia is our ally."
First, Verizon is getting it's butt kicked by Comcast and other cable providers for internet service. An article by Consumer reports this month says that Verizon has the superior service and value, but Comcast continues to hold onto the subscribers, particularly since FIOS is not available everywhere and cable just has the mindshare. Anything Verizon can do to make sure Comcast doesn't have a huge lever against them, particularly since they are buying NBC, will be huge.
Second, Verizon is starting to realize that Android has a shot at being a big deal, and not only does that require Google's cooperation, it also requires Android itself. Nexus One and Droid aren't the iPhone ikiller, but Android itself is becoming a challenger, because it's available across multiple platforms and services. Verizon sees this long term, and the secret to being competitive at the moment is getting people to go with the hardware and sell contracts.
Third, AT+T is getting tremendous flak for statements about limiting network usage and blaming iPhone users. Frankly, I think all providers would love to limit phones, but the problem with that is that people like Google don't want limitations. Leave it to Google to give Verizon some religion on the subject, and show them the more you can do with a device, the more people will want it. Anything that makes Verizon look good over AT+T, especially if AT+T self destructs a bit, is obviously great for Verizon.
Re:Throttling? (Score:2, Insightful)
Net neutrality is the way to go and our providers need to spend more money on developing their network rather than developing software which cripple their own product.
Re:Throttling? (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, on the M package, if you download 1.5 GB between 1000 and 1500, they bring you down to 200 or 300 kbps. That seems fair to ensure that nobody's encroaching on someone else's speeds (although I'm no network engineer, so someone else can confirm whether this is a legitimate line of reasoning by them).
I'm also not a network engineer, but it seems rather obvious that their system is not "fair" so long as the throttling is arbitrary and bears no relation to the available bandwidth.
Re:Throttling? (Score:3, Insightful)
Make that port/application/end-point and I'll agree.
I would actually sooner give in on letting ISPs throttle ports/applications than endpoints. If Verizon wants to do some kind of traffic-shaping which prioritizes HTTP and VOIP over bittorrent, that at least seems like it might be reasonable. I think it should be prioritization rather than straight-up throttling, but certain kinds of communications are less tolerant to lag than others. However, what I *don't* think is fair is for Verizon to give special priority to their own services and their partner's services.
The issue, in my mind, comes down to the monopoly/duopoly that the phone company and cable company have over the infrastructure coming into homes and businesses. My company has absolutely no choice but to use Verizon for our Internet access. Verizon should not be able to use this position to restrict our choices in VOIP providers.
Re:Actually it's a pass underneath during a blitz (Score:4, Insightful)