A joint policy proposal for an open Internet
Verizon-Google Legislative Framework Proposal
There are two areas that appear to be threats to net neutrality:
1) Under the "Network Management" header, they approve the alteration of traffic based on very exploitable terms such as "to address traffic that is... harmful to users", and "to ensure service quality to a subscriber".
2) Under the "Additional Online Services" header, traffic prioritization would be allowable.
I can understand the intent of some of these items in their proposal, but it would appear that Google and Verizon approve of an amount of Net "Imbalance". Not surprising from Verizon, for sure... but Google?
Hmm.
Aug 9 2010, 1:30 pm
|
|
IcewarriorX
 |
Give me the dumbass version of whatever you're saying please.
|
IcewarriorX wrote:
Give me the dumbass version of whatever you're saying please. For the record, my response here does not mean I think you're a dumbass... From wikipedia: Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by Internet Service Providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and no restrictions on the modes of communication allowed. The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of Internet access, and another user pays for the same level of access, then the two users should be able to connect to each other at the subscribed level of access. So at a very core technical level, if an ISP engages in traffic prioritization with discrimination, they are effectively opposed to network neutrality. Google and Verizon have agreed on a kind of manifesto for Congress (it was released earlier this afternoon). The items I highlighted were written under the intent of consumer protection(1) and expanding market niches(2). To do either, especially (2), requires a divergence from network neutrality. | |
Stuff like net neutrality is such a touchy subject, in my opinion. I'm not a libertarian, I believe some rules and restrictions need to be applied to many things. The problem is that I think rules and restrictions can be taken too far, especially when it comes to something like the internet. I'm all for a fairly free internet, but things can get a little out of control when stuff like that whole Wikileaks incident goes down. I still don't really know what my personal opinion is. As far as I'm concerned with those classified document though, maybe the government should have been a little more careful with those. Obviously they made a mistake, and they're paying for it. I say it serves them right and I hope they've learned a lesson from it.
| |
Fugsnarf wrote:
Stuff like net neutrality is such a touchy subject, in my opinion. I'm not a libertarian, I believe some rules and restrictions need to be applied to many things. The problem is that I think rules and restrictions can be taken too far, especially when it comes to something like the internet. I'm all for a fairly free internet, but things can get a little out of control when stuff like that whole Wikileaks incident goes down. I still don't really know what my personal opinion is. As far as I'm concerned with those classified document though, maybe the government should have been a little more careful with those. Obviously they made a mistake, and they're paying for it. I say it serves them right and I hope they've learned a lesson from it. The issue is the internet is international, apply whatever restrictions you please in the US on stuff like Wikileaks, the rest of the world will just carry on with it in some form or other, and leaks of US military data will still happen on it and impact on US politics and daily life. You'll just have effectively become Iran if you tried to restrict it in the US, blocking whatever your Government deems to be dangerous. This is where being anti net neutrality tends to fall over too, as if it's too heavy handed then the innovative web services of tomorrow will still happen, just not in the US. And that's a pretty profitable and growing market for the US to lose, just so ISPs with media interests can push their TV shows and movies better. It doesn't particularly make good business sense, nor good sense for civil liberty and it's difficult to enforce effectively enough to achieve the desired end result. | |
The Wikileaks incident doesn't really have anything to do with network neutrality.
With network neutrality if you loaded up byond.com and msn.com, both pages would load at pretty much the same speed taking server location into account. Without network neutrality msn.com will potentially load much faster than the smaller independent website byond.com because MSN will have obviously footed the bill for faster pipelines. | |
You're right, it doesn't. The only reason I brought it up is because it's a problem that can happen with complete net neutrality. Both sides can be defended.
| |
Bootyboy wrote:
IcewarriorX wrote: I saw this on CNET TV, I didn't understand and can you dumb it up a lot more pwez? me stuido | |
Fugsnarf wrote:
The only reason I brought it up is because it's a problem that can happen with complete net neutrality. Both sides can be defended. Once those documents were published, they were out there in digital form and no amount of censorship could have undone that. The outcome wouldn't have been different with or without network neutrality. The only way I could see you try to put the incident in a positive light for anti-network neutrality is if you're in favor of censorship. I don't believe both sides can be defended. The way I see it you're either for network neutrality or you're against it with investments in mind or out of sheer ignorance. | |
That's pretty surprising google would be supporting potentially getting rid of net neutrality. Doesn't make any sense at all from a business perspective for them.
| |
Fugsnarf wrote:
Stuff like net neutrality is such a touchy subject, in my opinion. I'm not a libertarian, I believe some rules and restrictions need to be applied to many things. The problem is that I think rules and restrictions can be taken too far, especially when it comes to something like the internet. I'm all for a fairly free internet, but things can get a little out of control when stuff like that whole Wikileaks incident goes down. People have a right to know what their government does, anyway; the only content that should be censored is child porn. | |
Jeff8500 wrote:
the only content that should be censored is child porn. Then you wouldn't be for complete net neutrality. That's why I believe this is a bit of a touchy subject. | |
Fugsnarf wrote:
Jeff8500 wrote: Haha, the point is that it's near impossible to censor it (if it isn't impossible, which it probably is), because it's illegal and runs in underground circles. | |
Offtopic:
Who is the girl in your member's (large) icon? | |
What exactly is wrong with this? Other than the wireless crap, it seems pretty reasonable, it seems to be net neutrality. I mean the only real issue would be with the "extra services" and what not, but other than it basically does what net neutrality should do, prevent ISPs from favoring one website over another. Unless there is something I am missing, please inform me.
| |
http://torrentfreak.com/ verizon-and-att-ban-bittorrent-on-wireless-networks-100813/
Just thought I'd share that with you all. It pretty much says that, for the most part, the Google hate is unjustified. | |