Google & Verizon's Real Net Neutrality Proposal 254
langelgjm writes "Announced this afternoon in a joint conference call held by CEOs Eric Schmidt and Ivan Seidenberg, Google and Verizon have released a joint net neutrality proposal in the form of a 'suggested legislative framework for consideration by lawmakers.' This comes on the heels of last week's assertion (and subsequent denial) that Google and Verizon were close to concluding talks that would permit Verizon to prioritize certain content in exchange for pay. A look at the actual text of the framework shows some positive net neutrality principles, but there is also some more curious content: 'Wireless broadband' is singled out for exclusion from most of the agreement, and providers would be permitted to prioritize 'additional online services... distinguishable in scope and purpose.' Public Knowledge, a watchdog group based in Washington, has criticized the agreement for these provisions."
Re:why the fuck are these people deciding? (Score:5, Informative)
This is equivalent to writing your representative and saying "This is how I think this issue should be handled". I'd rather see companies doing this and trying to put forward workable compromises than throwing hundreds of millions of dollars into lobbyists.
Re:why the fuck are these people deciding? (Score:3, Informative)
You make the mistake of assuming they aren't lobbying for this.
Re:Lesser of two evils? (Score:4, Informative)
I see "mesh networking" as a misspelling of "mess networking" because it's so damn inefficient it's not even funny. Wireless networking is for point-to-point connections like my TV to my headphones. Broadcasting packets with the hope it'll get where you want it going requires too many repeats, and that's just not good networking. Forget it.
Does Google really care? (Score:5, Informative)
The Register has an interesting piece on Net Neutrality and Google's co-location deals. El Reg posits that Google is trying to eat its cake and have it too: appearing to be the good-guy by supporting Net Neutrality, while knowing that its own private backbone network and ISP server co-location will give it a de-facto advantage regardless:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/09/neutrality_new_net_hypergiants/ [theregister.co.uk]
Re:why the fuck are these people deciding? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:why the fuck are these people deciding? (Score:3, Informative)
Certainly works for landmine manufacturers in the US.
The Ottawa Treaty [wikipedia.org](hint: the US has not agreed to the treaty)
Re:why the fuck are these people deciding? (Score:5, Informative)
Easy! The Supreme Court.
Look up "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission"
It happened in January 2010 and gave corporations first amendment rights.
Re:Lesser of two evils? (Score:3, Informative)
Well, let's start with standards, like the 60hz electricity we use. Don't ask about oil drilling standards for offshore rigs.
Then there are roads. I think Interstate highways are underbuilt to keep road construction companies in business, but overall, they're pretty nice.
And I like public parks, like Yellowstone, Yosemite, and so on. But they're chronically underfunded. I like the US Defense Department, but they're often over-funded. Then there are those great TSA guys that keep me feeling safe at airports, take nice pictures of me, and smoke cigarettes outside the terminals.
Cancelling government services, to return to reality, are simple: you cut off their funding and they wither on the vine. Despite our seeming hatred of government, the US Government is far better than many others. And someone needs to keep the foxes out of the henhouse.
Re:why the fuck are these people deciding? (Score:4, Informative)
Um, whether or not they are selling things you would find to be "workable compromises", the people employed by companies like Google and Verizon to sell their public policy ideas to policymakers are, in fact, lobbyists.
If you had the money to hire people to do that for you instead of just writing a letter to your representative on your own, that person would be lobbying on your behalf, too.
Re:why the fuck are these people deciding? (Score:3, Informative)
What do you think lobbyists do when they wine and dine your representative?
This is the same thing without the wining and dining--that we know of. For all we know, they could put forth this document, and then the lobbyists would only have to point back to it while they wine and dine.
My point is that the two things are orthogonal. This proposal is about what Verizon and Google wants to do. The role of the lobbyist is to convince elected representatives to support this proposal.
Re:Lesser of two evils? (Score:3, Informative)
*crickets chirping*
He probably realised he'd save some money, and so sold his beliefs down the river for some cold, hard cash. He does that.