EFF Reviews the Verizon-Google Net Neutrality Deal 162
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The EFF has written an analysis of the Net Neutrality deal brokered between Verizon and Google. While the EFF agrees with substantial portions of it, such as giving the FCC only enough authority to investigate complaints, rather than giving them a blank check to create regulations, there are a number of troubling issues with the agreement. In particular, they're concerned that what constitutes 'reasonable' network management is in the eye of the beholder and they don't like giving a free pass to anyone who claims they're attempting to block unlawful content, even when doing so in such a way that they interfere with lawful activities. On balance, while there are some good ideas about how to get Net Neutrality with minimal government involvement, there are serious flaws in the agreement that would allow ISPs to interfere with any service they wanted to because there is no algorithm that can correctly determine which numbers are currently illegal."
Not to surprising (Score:2, Interesting)
Limited FCC Jurisdiction — Good
Standard-Setting Bodies — Interesting
Reasonable Network management, Additional Online Services — Troubling
“Lawful” Content and Wireless Exclusions — Fail
One thing that seems good (mostly for content providers, but also consumers) and a few things that could be good for consumers, but still favor ISPs. Sounds like Verizon agreed, "We will let the FCC regulate on a case by case basis, as long as we get broad powers manipulate our other services, and block content we fear is unlawful." The standard setting body is iffy, since as the article points out, these groups tend not to be on the consumers side.
It will be interesting to see where this goes, but personally I am against the idea that they will throttle torrents, or downloads cause "they are consuming too much for it to be legal".
Re:So, regulation haters... (Score:3, Interesting)
Meanwhile those of us against net neutrality regulation at this time are shaking our heads wondering why so many people want to forever trade their freedom of choice to a bunch of politicians that are sure to meddle with the trust they have placed in them a thousand times over.
Re:Anyone else? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure how old you are, young man, but, corporations (through lawyers, of course) have been writing some of our laws for quite some time. For a current example, see the DMCA; for an old example, we can see that Du Pont appears to be responsible for making marijuana illegal in this country [ozarkia.net].
But I do find it odd that they are now doing it so blatantly, right in front of our eyes!
Re:So, regulation haters... (Score:3, Interesting)
If Verizon owns the bandwidth lines leading to your community (or to the specific site you're attempting to access), it doesn't matter who your end ISP winds up being.
That is like saying if Verizon owns the telephone lines leading to your community it doesn't matter who your bank ends up being. Telephone companies are legally prohibited from doing things like arbitrarily charging one bank more than another if they want the privilege of receiving incoming calls, let alone listening in on the conversation and charging both parties more if a high value transaction was performed.
The whole net neutrality debate is about extending the non-discrimination rules that apply to common carriers like telephone companies to common carriers like internet access providers. I say "common carrier" advisedly. Unless the law is changed the FCC has ample legal justification to regulate internet access providers as common carriers, under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended.
What nobody seems to understand ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Today there are two ways content is delivered on the Internet. I has been that way for a number of years, at least since 2000 and maybe longer.
Way one is the way we are familiar with - User A connects to Server B and content is delivered. Slowly. Through whatever forest of routers and links are needed to get from A to B.
Way two is evidently a secret to a lot of people. Akami. This company has servers co-located in ISP centers all over the US and other parts of the world. User A no longer connects to Server B but instead connects to Akami caching server C which is right there at the ISP where User A's service is hosted. Content is delivered across the internal ISP network very, very quickly. Much, much faster than from a remote server.
How do you get your content on Akami caching servers? You pay. Lots and lots. But your users then get really excellent service. Isn't this what people are talking about trying to prevent from happening? The whole pay-to-play model is already here and it isn't going away.
Sorry, but we lost the idea of treating every server identically at the dawn of the Internet when it moved from University computers to commercial entities.
Re:So, regulation haters... (Score:1, Interesting)
>>>Or letting Internet users police themselves.
Precisely. The "free market" simply means "power to the citizen". What is so horrible about letting people decide for themselves? i.e. "Microsoft sucks, I'm switching to Apple or Linux or Amiga OS." Or: "Comcast sucks... I'm switching to Verizon or Cricket Broadband instead."
What Google and the FCC want to do is give control to themselves, like they did with TV, and away from the citizens. Goodbye any illegal activities (like bittorrent or encrypted file-sharing) or adult content (nudist websites) or free speech (you'll need a license to publish a blog).
Re:So, regulation haters... (Score:1, Interesting)
I don't understand... you trust corporations more than the government?
Any particular reason why?
AFAIK, all net-neutrality supporters are looking for are laws which prevent companies from interfering with the way the net has worked up until now.
It's not a change, merely a codifying of rules to preserve the status-quo...
I mean being against net neutrality laws because they require enforcement is like being pro-murder or pro-theft because you don't want those pesky cops around enforcing the law.
Re:So, regulation haters... (Score:4, Interesting)
Loan mortgages to people who can't pay them back, else the US Government will drag you into court and prosecute you.
That's a damn lie. One of those trite, Fox News talking points you repeat over and over with no basis in fact. I had my real estate license during the go-go years and there wasn't any government regulation requiring lenders to give loans to people who couldn't afford it. They were not allowed to red line or discriminate based on zip code, but it didn't matter. They would write anyone with a pulse, no income verification, nothing. It was pure greed coupled with a corrupt industry. Even when I tried to convince my clients to buy something they could afford, there would be a mortgage broker telling them that was bad advice and trying to push one of the gadget mortgages with variable interest rates. These were in affluent, suburban, upper middle class neighborhoods. The areas hardest hit when the market collapsed, not the poor urban areas you're trying to hang.
But way to try and rewrite history. It was the corrupt, inept leadership you supported, so I can see why you're so anxious to find a scapegoat. Even if it's in the rear view mirror. It can't ever be that the people you supported were incompetent, that you were a dupe and voted for stupid people, it's always someone else.