Get flash to fully experience Pearltrees
The " deal " announced by Google and Verizon today definitely has health care in mind.
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.
Looks like Google and Verizon were, in fact, in talks over Net Neutrality after all, calling it a “thorny” issue, no less.
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:
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?)
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 .
According to the proposal, Internet service providers would not be able to block producers of online content or offer them a paid “fast lane.” It says the should have the authority to stop or fine any rule-breakers.
<img class="alignright size-full wp-image-21818" title="google_verizon" src="http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/business/2010/08/google_verizon-250x256-custom.jpg" alt="" width="250" height="256" />
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.
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?
Posted by Tom Foremski - August 10, 2010
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.
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.
Another question is asked about what is different about these new services that would not be on the Internet. Mr. Seidenberg mentions the FiOS TV service as an example.
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.