End of the Internet 2.0

[Nedak]

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. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies. It's what makes sure the next Google, out there in a garage somewhere, has just as good a chance as any giant corporate behemoth to find its audience and thrive online.

 

What Google and Verizon are proposing is fake Net Neutrality. You can read their framework for yourself here or go here to see Google twisting itself in knots about this suddenly "thorny issue." But here are the basics of what the two companies are proposing:

 

1. Under their proposal, there would be no Net Neutrality on wireless networks -- meaning anything goes, from blocking websites and applications to pay-for-priority treatment.

 

2. Their proposed standard for "non-discrimination" on wired networks is so weak that actions like Comcast's widely denounced blocking of BitTorrent would be allowed.

 

3. The deal would let ISPs like Verizon -- instead of Internet users like you -- decide which applications deserve the best quality of service. That's not the way the Internet has ever worked,and it threatens to close the door on tomorrow's innovative applications. (If Real Player had been favored a few years ago, would we ever have gotten YouTube?)

 

4. The deal would allow ISPs to effectively split the Internet into "two pipes" - one of which would be reserved for "managed services," a pay-for-pay platform for content and applications. This is the proverbial toll road on the information superhighway, a fast lane reserved for the select few, while the rest of us are stuck on the cyber-equivalent of a winding dirt road.

 

5. The pact proposes to turn the Federal Communications Commission a toothless watchdog, left fruitlessly chasing consumer complaints but unable to make rules of its own. Instead, it would leave it up to unaccountable (and almost surely industry-controlled) third parties to deicide what the rules should be.

 

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. That's why we have Congress and the FCC.

 

Certainly by now we should have learned -- from AIG, Massey Energy, BP, you name it -- what happens when we let big companies regulate themselves or hope they'll do the right thing.

 

We need the FCC - with the backing of Congress and President Obama - to step and do the hard work of governing. That means restoring the FCC's authority to protect Internet users and safeguarding real Net Neutrality once and for all.

 

Such a move might not be popular on Wall Street or even in certain corners of Silicon Valley, but it's the kind of leadership the public needs right now.

 

If you haven't yet told the FCC why we need Net Neutrality, please do it now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-aaron/google-verizon-pact-it-ge_b_676194.html

 

Tell the FCC!

[JediAthos]

Google and Verizon have no authority here as the article stated. Basically all they did is come out and say hey FCC this is what we want. As we know we don't always get what we want and if I know the FCC at all they will do things the way they want to do them and what Verizon and Google want won't matter one iota.

[Arcesious]

Leave the internet alone, its fine the way it is.

[Sabretooth]

Leave the internet alone, its fine the way it is.

 

Maybe it's fine for us, but for some corporate types, it isn't fine enough.

[Trench]

Please shoot those men. Please? Please?!?!

[Darth Avlectus]

I think a mix is good--not too corporate, not too public. Too far either way and it becomes possibly tyrannous. Assuming the FCC is just going to allow them to walk all over everyone. I kinda have to say FAT CHANCE to that. Though the article raises some good points, it's just a bit early to be so alarmed at it yet.

 

They can want and whine all they want but the truth is, if monopolies own everything (yes that includes public/government owned entities AS WELL as private) there is no balance nor room for innovation to thrive.

[Samuel Dravis]

From what I can tell, they've said they're for net neutrality on land lines, but not mobile. Mobile internet is another matter, because you can't just add another line to get more bandwidth; bandwidth is limited by physical constraints (e.g., signal-noise ratio, the frequency of the signal etc.). It makes sense for some applications to be "privileged" for mobile. VOIP, for example-- if it had to share bandwidth with enough people downloading a stupid dog trick video on Youtube, it would be unusable. I guess we'll see how it goes.

[Arcesious]

Well whoever has more money wins, usually. Big corporate monopolies find yet another way to make more money, which is good for the economy. If it happens, I suppose it can't be THAT bad. It may inconvenience many people in some respects, but I assume that eventually everyone would get used to it, and things will level out for everyone. Still, its not a welcome change to be suggesting.

[Darth Avlectus]

Well whoever has more money wins, usually. Big corporate monopolies

Are you referring to Private sector, Public sector, or both?

find yet another way to make more money, which is good for the economy. If it happens, I suppose it can't be THAT bad. It may inconvenience many people in some respects, but I assume that eventually everyone would get used to it, and things will level out for everyone. Still, its not a welcome change to be suggesting.

 

Standardization/protocol is something that will always need to be established otherwise we'd have a real BIG mess relating to incompatibilities of software and hardware if companies made everything just whatever way they wanted. The only exception would be if it were all made by just one company, then it might as well be made by the government. Just to keep in mind.

[DeadYorick]

Didn't Google and Verizon announce trying to get rid of Net Neutrality years ago?