Steve Wozniak to the FCC: Keep the Internet Free - Steve Wozniak - Technology. To whom it may concern: I have always loved humor and laughter. As a young engineer I got an impulse to start a Dial-a-Joke in the San Jose/San Francisco area. I was aware of such humor services in other countries, such as Australia. This idea came from my belief in laughter. I could scarcely believe that I was the first person to create such a simple service in my region. The major expense for a young engineer is the rent of an apartment. Yes, my guard stood hard when abstract threatsToo nobel to neglectDeceived me into thinkingI had something to protectGood and bad, I define these termsQuite clear, no doubt somehowAhh, but I was so much older thenI'm younger than that now -- Bob Dylan Moving ahead, I have owned four homes in my life.
As a side note, I once phoned the cable company in the town I lived in. In the earliest days of satellite TV to homes, you would buy a receiver and pay a fee to get all the common cable channels. That's how the people think. Sincerely, Was It Google And Verizon Or The FCC That Just Screwed Us On Mobile Net Neutrality? We’ve already covered the FCC Net Neutrality vote earlier today, but something new has come to light.
Something that’s very odd. Something that’s quite frankly a little terrifying. Engadget dug up the FCC’s release [PDF] and found the following nugget buried in the all-important section “Measured Steps for Mobile Broadband”: Further, we recognize that there have been meaningful recent moves toward openness, including the introduction of open operating systems like Android. In addition, we anticipate soon seeing the effects on the market of the openness conditions we imposed on mobile providers that operate on upper 700 MHz C-Block spectrum, which includes Verizon Wireless, one of the largest mobile wireless carriers in the U.S.In light of these considerations, we conclude it is appropriate to take measured steps at this time to protect the openness of the Internet when accessed through mobile broadband Except wait.
As Patel writes: I am slightly more paranoid. A joint policy proposal for an open Internet. Posted by Alan Davidson, Google director of public policy and Tom Tauke, Verizon executive vice president of public affairs, policy, and communications The original architects of the Internet got the big things right. By making the network open, they enabled the greatest exchange of ideas in history. By making the Internet scalable, they enabled explosive innovation in the infrastructure. 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.” In October, our two companies issued a shared statement of principles on network neutrality. 1. 2. Today our CEOs will announce a proposal that we hope will make a constructive contribution to the dialogue.
Third, it’s important that the consumer be fully informed about their Internet experiences. Google Is Anakin, Verizon Is The Emperor, And The Dark Side Is Winning. Editor’s note: Jonathan Askin is Associate Professor of Clinical Law at Brooklyn Law School and Founding Director of the Brooklyn Law and Incubator Policy Clinic (BLIP). He previously worked at the FCC and for the Obama campaign on telecommuncation policy. I can’t help but analogize Google’s role in the Net Neutrality Wars with Anakin’s shift to the Dark Side in Star Wars. I’m watching the discussion about the policy framework to govern the Internet with the repelled fascination of a guy who, as a child, loved Star Wars Episodes 4-6 and now, as an adult, begrudgingly watches Episodes 1-3. In the present drama, Verizon plays the Emperor, Google plays Anakin, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) plays the Old Republic, and Internet-Company-Not-Yet-Born might play Luke Skywalker—if the FCC is not blinded by the Verizon-Google Jedi mind trick and can formulate a forward-looking Internet policy framework that will foster competition and innovation.
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: The Tea Party Hates Net Neutrality Because It’s An ‘Affront’ To Free Speech. Umm… The Tea Party, the “American socio-political movement that emerged in 2009 through a series of locally and nationally coordinated protests,” and known for its colorful protest signs (as seen here), hates Net Neutrality.
Why does the Tea Party hate Net Neutrality? “I think the clearest thing is it’s an affront to free speech and free markets.” Thus spoke Jaime Radtke, chairwoman of the Virginia Tea Party Patriot Federation. Net Neutrality is an affront to free speech? Did I wake up in Bizarro World? The Virginia Tea Party Patriot Federation—a fantastic name, by the way—was one of 35 Tea Party groups that sent a letter to the FCC urging it to rubbish Net Neutrality. Here’s an excerpt from the letter: Over the past 25 years, the Internet has flourished in large part due to the extremely limited role that government has played. And it goes on like that. I don’t doubt that the signatories of the letter have the best of intentions, but I can’t help but feel that they’re slightly misguided. AT&T Crying Over Net Neutrality And Wiping Their Eyes With Piles Of Money.
Last month, I wrote that it was hard to feel sorry for AT&T. The context there was that their love/hate relationship with Apple over the years has been tough on them. Boo hoo. Today, AT&T is playing the sympathy card again — this time in the context of net neutrality. Pathetic. In a post entitled “Wireless is Different,” AT&T makes the case for why they agree with the Google/Verizon net neutrality proposal. Specifically, they agree with the wireless aspect of it, noting that the need policymakers to protect “wireless broadband networks from onerous new net neutrality regulations.
Now, AT&T shared some interesting data about the insane growth of wireless data expected over the next few years. Obviously, Google’s new buddy Verizon agreed with AT&T on both of those things back in the day. Here was Verizon’s statement on that at the time: Notice the first things mentioned? Like Google, AT&T is now trying to play the “what’s best for the consumer” card. Here’s my favorite part: High quality? Google, Just Cut The BS And Give The Gordon Gekko Speech Already. The past few days I’ve been bookmarking posts about Google, Verizon, and net neutrality to read later. For the past few hours I’ve been doing that — and I’ve barely made a dent.
It seems that everyone who has ever written a word on the Internet is up in arms about the situation. And what’s amazing is that nearly all of them are in agreement. There’s no clear consensus as to why Google is selling us out, but the consensus is that they are. And I have to agree. Before I begin, let me just state that there are only a handful of companies I adore because I love their products. And that’s exactly why what they’re doing with regard to net neutrality is so disappointing. In light of this week, much has been made about Google’s unofficial motto “don’t be evil”.
Instead, Google’s intentions are much more transparent: greed. The problem is that Google themselves are unwilling to admit that greed is what’s at play here. What’s best for us is net neutrality, pure and simple. More: Guess Who Else Disagrees With Google’s Net Neutrality Plan? Google In 2006. “The new Internet. If AT&T and Verizon have their way.” That was the final warning in a public service announcement that ran on television in the run up to the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2007.
Guess who made that video? Google. That’s striking, of course, because of the news this week that Google has now compromised with Verizon on a proposed net neutrality plan. Google says the compromises made were necessary to move the debate forward. If you read my post last night, obviously, I disagree. Who besides Google and Verizon do agree on this compromise? Earlier today, we were pointed to a new site made in protest of the Google/Verizon plan. Watch the video below: Further, here’s the note Google CEO Eric Schmidt also wrote in 2006 leading up to the act (which was co-sponosored by then-Senator Barack Obama, by the way): A Note to Google Users on Net Neutrality:The Internet as we know it is facing a serious threat.