Google and Verizon release joint statement on net nuetrality

[Brian Defferding]

http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-for-open-internet.html

 

[Matt Collins]

YouTube - ‪The Open Internet and Lessons from the Ma Bell Era‬‎

 

[Vessol]

Man..I'll be honest. When it comes to both sides of net neutrality..I'm just sticking my head in the sand. Too many other issues to worry over and this one is so huge I don't know which side to take.

 

[pcosmar]

My Idea of net neutrality, The governments Idea and the Telecoms Idea seem to be entirely different things.

My Idea of Neutrality is that providers simply provide connection. A connection free from regulation and censorship or excessive spying.

but they don't let me run anything.

 

[dannno]

Man..I'll be honest. When it comes to both sides of net neutrality..I'm just sticking my head in the sand. Too many other issues to worry over and this one is so huge I don't know which side to take.

It's pretty obvious that the establishment is pushing for net neutrality so they can control the internet...

 

[Brian Defferding]

I don't like it. Specifically, here in their statement:

Fourth, because of the confusion about the FCC’s authority following the Comcast court decision, our proposal spells out the FCC’s role and authority in the broadband space. In addition to creating enforceable consumer protection and nondiscrimination standards that go beyond the FCC’s preexisting consumer safeguards, the proposal also provides for a new enforcement mechanism for the FCC to use. Specifically, the FCC would enforce these openness policies on a case-by-case basis, using a complaint-driven process. The FCC could move swiftly to stop a practice that violates these safeguards, and it could impose a penalty of up to $2 million on bad actors.

Basically, they want the government to pick the winners and losers for them, and the penalties will be enough to hurt the smaller competitors while the larger competitors are big enough to eat the costs. This part also supports my gripe:

Sixth, we both recognize that wireless broadband is different from the traditional wireline world, in part because the mobile marketplace is more competitive and changing rapidly. In recognition of the still-nascent nature of the wireless broadband marketplace, under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency requirement. In addition, the Government Accountability Office would be required to report to Congress annually on developments in the wireless broadband marketplace, and whether or not current policies are working to protect consumers.

Nice. Google's Droid phenom phones want exemption from the policy they support on wireline services. Hmmmmm.

This is why I am very uneasy about Net Neutrality. I don't think it's a good idea, I don't think government should dictate how information distribution services should be run. They say that it's to "protect consumers" when it will do the opposite, it will give government the power they seek and the big ISP's an advantage over competitors. And it can hurt our capacity of innovation for future information services.

 

[Sentient Void]

Net neutrality is *BAD*. The answer is not *more* government, it's *less*. Brian above mentions just a few of the problems with this - apart from the general problems associated with allowing the federal government to regulate *anything*, and it's track record of doing so, along with the inefficiencies and distortions it creates.

As usual, as we almost always see with big govt regulation - the largest corporations that would be 'regulated' are the ones writing the regulations themselves. It's utterly ridiculous.

The only reason why misinformed people are ignorantly discussing the need for net neutrality is because they don't realize that the *problem* is *too much government*, what with state and other *government-mandated monopolies of telecoms (as public utilities)*.

We should be moving towards a much more free market model like Hong Kong's telecoms industry, for example - they have *sickening* amounts of competitors (telecom companies and ISPs, etc), in a MUCH, MUCH smaller area, and much MUCH higher available speeds.

Comon, everybody - the free market works... embrace it. If for whatever reason it looks like the market is 'failing' or heavily distorted, or 'needs fixing', ~99% of the time it's because of government involvement, the other 1% is probably because whatever market is an infant market.

 

[LibForestPaul]

- the free market works... embrace it.

Please provide whatever links you have regarding steps required to ensure competition. Because obviously there is none in this country.

If not net neutrality, than what? How do I get more than two choices for my ISP and four choices for my wireless?

 

[AutoDas]

^ don't worry, a team of lawyers known as the FCC that have no clue about technology will save the day!

 

[specsaregood]

This is why I am very uneasy about Net Neutrality.

I for one am ecstatic that the company responsible for designing and building the great firewall of china is dedicated to supporting a free and open internet here in the US. I mean, what could go wrong.

 

[pcosmar]

Please provide whatever links you have regarding steps required to ensure competition. Because obviously there is none in this country.

If not net neutrality, than what? How do I get more than two choices for my ISP and four choices for my wireless?

Links ?
No sorry, You see presently there are regulations in place that stifle competition.
If you wanted to ensure competition you would have to try something new,,like a free market.

Your "choices" are now limited by regulations, expect more soon.

btw, I have one choice for ISP and one for hardline phone.
I have the choice of 2 satellite providers for TV. There is no cable. (or broadcast)

Yup, I would like to see what an open market could do.

 

[Stary Hickory]

Well I want the FCC out of the internet. It's not there place. And I am banning verizon from now on. In fact I am canceling my phone service with them tomorrow. We all know what they are up to, everytime a company gets buddy buddy with government it is for one reason.

 

[jmdrake]

It's pretty obvious that the establishment is pushing for net neutrality so they can control the internet...

Dannno, I know you listen (or used to listen) to Alex Jones. I also know he's a big proponent of net neutrality. Do you think he's doing this on behalf of the "establishment" or that he just doesn't know better? Serious question.

Anyway, the internet infrastructure was built through government contracts. The "service providers" are really only responsible for what's known as "the last mile". And the service providers by in large used the state power of emminent domain to run the lines needed for the "last mile". The internet has never been fully private.

 

[specsaregood]

Dannno, I know you listen (or used to listen) to Alex Jones. I also know he's a big proponent of net neutrality. Do you think he's doing this on behalf of the "establishment" or that he just doesn't know better? Serious question.

I'm not a big listener of AJ's but I would be very surprised to discover that he supports the net neutrality legislation.

 

[BetaMale]

I wonder why Big Tech is backing net neutrality. Hmmm, maybe the same reasons why Big Pharma is behind socialized health care. $$$ and control...

 

[jmdrake]

I'm not a big listener of AJ's but I would be very surprised to discover that he supports the net neutrality legislation.

I don't know if he supports the actual legislation or not. He may say it's a trojan horse with other "nasty surprises" tucked inside. (Not listening on a daily basis these days) I do know for a fact that he has over the years championed net neutrality and even once said that was one of the few things he disagreed with Ron Paul on.
neutrality.