Google & Verizon Propose Enforceable Net Neutrality. Google and Verizon held a press call today announcing a joint legislative framework proposal: internet network transparency and FCC enforcement with up to $2 million fines for network providers that engage in anti-competitive measures that hurt consumers. This is the exact opposite of what reports last week speculated the companies were working on. (Note: broadband specialists and other press are very skeptical, see below.) Under the proposal, the General Accounting Office would report yearly to congress about how well it all is working.
Verizon said the company was concerned that too many rules up front could infringe on its ability to optimize the network for performance, but that some rules are clearly needed and transparency is important. In theory private networks could be built to sell special services, but Google's Schmidt said that Google will not do that. Press cynicism runs deep, though, and questions about loopholes and dark hidden intentions are still being asked. Google, Verizon and online health care | The "deal" announced by Google and Verizon today definitely has health care in mind.
(Handshake graphic from CNET's excellent coverage of this story. Thanks Marguerite Reardon and Tom Krazit for the good work.) Getting health applications past regulators like the FDA, will require tracking of service quality, as well as serious assurances on both privacy and security. If someone dies while wearing a heart or diabetes monitor, lawyers will want to know where fault lies before suing. There are famous and controversial figures using such devices, and there will be more. Putting those services inside the network makes little sense to me, but it makes enormous sense to the health IT industry, to the legal industry, to the regulatorium, to insurers, and to device makers.
Essentially, you're building health applications into a private network, tracking that network, layering it on the public network, and charging for the extra services and expense. One final point. Demystifying Google and Verizon’s Proposed Policy for the Open Internet. Google and Verizon have released a joint public policy proposal for the open Internet outlining how broadband providers can control how their users receive content.The proposal, which was announced earlier today by the companies' CEOs in a conference call, is meant as a legal framework. It intends to please consumers who want to choose what they access on the Internet and how, but is still a compromise, and thus the most fundamentalist net neutrality advocates might still have some battles on their hands.
The proposal we're seeing is starkly different from what was described in The New York Times article from last week that accused Google and Verizon of conspiring to upend the principles of net neutrality. We didn't believe it even then, and Google CEO Eric Schmidt said in the conference call that "almost all" of what the NYT reported was "completely wrong. " What's in the Proposal? There are some provisions for "reasonable network management. " What About Wireless? A Way Out? Not Neutrality: Did Google & Verizon Just Stab The Internet In The Heart?
Looks like Google and Verizon were, in fact, in talks over Net Neutrality after all, calling it a “thorny” issue, no less. Hm. Both parties announced, a few moments ago, the creation of a codified framework that they will submit to lawmakers in hopes of being enshrined into law. Many of the ideas are fairly benign, such as giving the FCC power to regulate the Internet a little more forcefully. (A recent court case has rendered the FCC’s power somewhat uncertain.) Other ideas, such as the wholesale exclusion of wireless Internet from any sort of Net Neutrality controls, are a little more controversial. Two of the five deserve a closer look: points five and six, those dealing with “additional, differentiated online services” and wireless broadband access.
To me, point five seems like carte blanche for the creation almost of a second Internet. Imagine this pitch: “Why settle for “just” the Internet when you can have Internet Plus? It’s the fracturing of the Internet before your very eyes. Google Goes "Evil" I just got off a media conference call with Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg. They announced a new policy recommendation that would kill the Internet as we know it, if implemented by FCC Chair Julius Genachowski and other policy makers.
The Google/Verizon deal (also posted online) basically says: The old "wireline" Internet that will be irrelevant in a few years? We propose a "new, enforceable prohibition against discriminatory practices" on that.New "wireless services" (aka the entire future of the Internet)? Google, a company that I've long admired and currently hold thousands of dollars of stock in, just "went evil. " That's why over 300,000 Americans have signed an open letter telling Google "don't be evil" -- protect Net Neutrality and the Internet's level playing field. Why did Google cut this absurd deal, one that dramatically hurts its credibility in the online space?
We know why Verizon did it. So, they cut a deal with the bad guys. Google-Verizon Pact: It Gets Worse. So Google and Verizon went public today with their "policy framework" -- better known as the pact to end the Internet as we know it. News of this deal broke this week, sparking a public outcry that's seen hundreds of thousands of Internet users calling on Google to live up to its "Don't Be Evil" pledge. But cut through the platitudes the two companies (Googizon, anyone?) Offered on today's press call, and you'll find this deal is even worse than advertised. The proposal is one massive loophole that sets the stage for the corporate takeover of the Internet. Real Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers can't discriminate between different kinds of online content and applications. What Google and Verizon are proposing is fake Net Neutrality. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
If there's a silver lining in this whole fiasco it's that, last I checked anyway, it wasn't up to Google and Verizon to write the rules. If you haven't yet told the FCC why we need Net Neutrality, please do it now. A Worrisome Proposal For Net Neutrality. A Private net neutrality. After a week of speculation and denial, Google and Verizon unveiled their own version of net neutrality in the form of a "suggested legislative framework for consideration by lawmakers," as Google's public policy guy Alan Davidson and Verizon Vice President Thomas Tauke put it on Google's public policy blog.
"Ultimately, we think this proposal provides the certainty that allows both Web startups to bring their novel ideas to users, and broadband providers to invest in their networks," they wrote. We're guessing that lots of people will disagree with that assessment. How large a truck could you drive through these loopholes? The proposal calls for an enforceable mechanism at the Federal Communications Commission against discrimination towards lawful content. And the plan includes transparency requirements and a principle against the "prioritization of Internet traffic. " But then comes this little clinker in the more detailed summary of the proposal: Google Reveals Its Secret Internet Regulation Deal.
Do NOT use Google if you care about this. Switch to something else. The New York Times article called Google and Verizon out for what they were trying to do, which was prioritize traffic, creating a specialized delivery platform, as closed as TV is, thus locking out competition, upstarts, etc. It would create an internet where only the wealthy had the power to deliver whatever they wanted to you, while the little guy was squished out. So the New York times, warned everyone that verizon and Google were about to announce this. Google and Verizon come out and say they had no such talks... Now suddenly we learn that... So Lets recap. New york times calls Google and Verizon out. Google and Verizon are out to change the internet forever! They want to make it as exclusive, and specialized, as TV. DO what is right.... The only reason we have a voice on the internet is because of net neutrality. DO NOT USE GOOGLE for anything. If you like Torrenting... this proposal is the death to you.
A Vision for Managing Internet Traffic. The Real Story: A Tale of Two Internets. Google and Verizon announced a joint proposal on Monday that would allow ISPs to offer premium content bundles over an unspecified global network — an unexpected gambit that would seem to call for separate and unequal internets. The two companies say the guidelines would ensure that no internet traffic of any kind is prioritized over any other kind (with the exception of viruses, spam and the like).
“There should be a new, enforceable prohibition against discriminatory practices,” reads part of their proposal, posted on both Verizon’s and Google’s websites. “For the first time, wireline broadband providers would not be able to discriminate against or prioritize lawful internet content, applications or services in a way that causes harm to users or competition.” “Our proposal also includes safeguards to ensure that such online services must be distinguishable from traditional broadband Internet access services and are not designed to circumvent the rules,” it continues. [Story continues] Verizon, Google Announce Their Net Neutrality Solution. Last week was a messy (though entertaining) one on the network neutrality front, with the FCC canceling their largely closed-door meetings with carriers after criticism and reports that Google and Verizon were conducting private neutrality negotiations. While there was a lot of random interpretation of what the Verizon/Google talks mean, we noted on Friday that the goal of the talks were to to pre-empt tougher consumer protections with voluntary measures that likely wouldn't do much of anything (Verizon's usual tactic in DC).Google and Verizon spent last week engaged in damage control, Verizon insisting that their closed-door meetings with Google were about "openness," then insisting no real arrangement had been made.
Google in turn denied they'd struck any paid prioritization deal and reiterated a vague commitment to an open Internet, but didn't really deny that a private deal was struck. How? Internet, schminternet. I am baffled by the Google-Verizon agreement on nonnet-nonneutrality. I’m mostly baffled by why Google would put its name to this.
What does it gain? As I see it, the agreement makes two huge carve-outs to neutrality and regulation of the internet: mobile and anything new. So ol, grandpa internet may chug along giving us YouTube videos of flaming cats, but you want to get that while you’re out of your house? “Oh, no, sir. You want something new? “Schminternet, sir.” And transparency in essence creates a third carve-out: So long as the phone company tells you it’s screwing your bits, it’s ok. But wait. “No, sir, I told you, the schminternet.” “Schminternet.”. Grrrr. “Sir, sir, if I could interrupt you. . : LATER: In my tweet, I called this a Munich Pact. Just as Czechoslovakia was not invited to its cutting apart, so were we not invited to Google and Verizon’s parlays.
But the internet is ours, not yours, Verizon and Google. Pass the sauerkraut, Herr Chamberlain. Why The Silence From Vint Cerf, Father Of Internet And GOOG Senior VP? Posted by Tom Foremski - August 10, 2010 Why is Vint Cerf, Google's chief Internet Evangelist and father of the Internet silent on this issue of Internet neutrality? It's an issue that has blown up over the past few days yet Mr. Cerf has been absent. Just over a year ago, Mr. Cerf wrote this on the Google public policy blog: Allowing a handful of broadband carriers to determine what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the features that have made the Internet such a success, and could permanently compromise the Internet as a platform for the free exchange of information, commerce, and ideas. ...we believe that providers should have the flexibility to manage traffic congestion and malware on their networks in non-discriminatory ways.
Today on the same blog, Google and Verizon have thrown out these principles when applied to wireless broadband! This is a bullshit excuse. (The lighting was bad so I turned it into a high contrast video.) Is the Google-Verizon Plan a Setback for Net Neutrality? As recently as last week, Google Inc. was generally known as the nation's largest and most vocal advocate of Net neutrality — the principle that any bit of data online should be allowed to travel just as fast as any other bit, allowing the high school kid in his bedroom to compete on the same viral playing field as a multinational corporation with a server farm. But that was then, before Google's announcement Monday of a controversial policy proposal with Verizon that would allow for Internet service providers to prioritize data traffic delivered through mobile devices and new premium broadband subscription services.
In a conference call to explain the proposal, Google president Eric Schmidt argued that there was no change in company policy. "Google cares a lot about the open Internet," he said, adding that the company was focused on protecting the rights of the next "two people in a garage" with an online business start-up. BBC Tech Brief. Wireless Is Not Different. You Can’t Be Half-Open. Last week, a firestorm erupted after Google and Verizon jointly proposed new rules to lawmakers for protecting the “open Internet” and net neutrality. When Google and Verizon professed their love for the open Internet (“Google cares a lot about the open Internet,” said CEO Eric Schmidt), they left out the future of the Internet, the wireless Internet. Instead, they would only apply to the wired Internet.
Plenty of people called Google out for its hypocrisy. Either you are open or you are not. Telecom companies like Verizon and AT&T want to treat the wireless Internet differently than the wired Internet. Google and Verizon argued that “wireless broadband is different from the traditional wireline world,” and that it is moving too fast to be bogged down by regulations. The issue here is not about managing traffic for often-valid technical reasons. These are sound proposals. He points to the work of Stanford law professor Barbara Van Schewick, who proposes: Google and Verizon's announcement. Google's statement . A Review of the Proposal by EFF. Efforts to protect net neutrality that involve government regulation have always faced one fundamental obstacle: the substantial danger that the regulators will cause more harm than good for the Internet. The worst case scenario would be that, in allowing the FCC to regulate the Internet, we open the door for big business, Hollywood and the indecency police to exert even more influence on the Net than they do now.
On Monday, Google and Verizon proposed a new legislative framework for net neutrality. Reaction to the proposal has been swift and, for the most part, highly critical. While we agree with many aspects of that criticism, we are interested in the framework's attempt to grapple with the Trojan Horse problem. The proposed solution: a narrow grant of power to the FCC to enforce neutrality within carefully specified parameters. Unfortunately, the same document that proposed this intriguing idea also included some really terrible ideas. Limited FCC Jurisdiction — Good: Google-Verizon Pact Worse than Feared. Free Press Urges Policymakers to Reject the pact. Emergency Petition to Google: Don't be evil. Net Neutrality: Threat or Menace?