Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
Forum Moderators: goodroi
Today our CEOs will announce a proposal that we hope will make a constructive contribution to the dialogue. Our joint proposal takes the form of a suggested legislative framework for consideration by lawmakers, and is laid out here. Below we discuss the seven key elements:
First, both companies have long been proponents of the FCC’s current wireline broadband openness principles, which ensure that consumers have access to all legal content on the Internet, and can use what applications, services, and devices they choose. The enforceability of those principles was called into serious question by the recent Comcast court decision. Our proposal would now make those principles fully enforceable at the FCC.
tired of letting 50% of their bandwidth costs go free to google
[edited by: Demaestro at 8:15 pm (utc) on Aug 9, 2010]
If no one can regulate how Internet Service Providers charge for access to the Internet then what is stopping them from charging you $0.05 a MB when going to a site you've never heard of and $0.10 a MB when going to a popular website when it makes no difference to them what sites you use your MBs on.
Kinda like AT&T charging 20 bucks/month for tethering, why should it matter how you use your data?
we agree that in addition to these existing principles there should be a new, enforceable prohibition against discriminatory practices. This means that for the first time, wireline broadband providers would not be able to discriminate against or prioritize lawful Internet content, applications or services in a way that causes harm to users or competition.
Importantly, this new nondiscrimination principle includes a presumption against prioritization of Internet traffic - including paid prioritization.
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
If I have a contract for 250MB a month of data transfer from Comcast then in what alternate dimension does it cost them more if I use it up on Youtube or on some site you have never heard of? Either way I am allowed 250MB?
I say, charge the YouTube bandwidth hordes - not me
Some peering connections might be cheaper then others, and if it went though the more expensive peer it would cost the isp more.
I say, charge the YouTube bandwidth hordes - not me.
It is imperative that we find ways to protect the future openness of the Internet and encourage the rapid deployment of broadband.
A provider that offers a broadband Internet access service complying with the above principles could offer any other additional or differentiated services.
Regulatory Authority: The FCC would have exclusive authority to oversee broadband Internet access service, but would not have any authority over Internet software applications, content or services. Regulatory authorities would not be permitted to regulate broadband Internet access service.
[edited by: Sgt_Kickaxe at 1:56 am (utc) on Aug 10, 2010]
Don't believe a word of the "press release", it's propaganda.
All this is going to do is get the cable companies to move to 'pay for what you eat' models of payment for us.
an unnamed "regulatory authority" policing website content
Does anyone on here really feel that someone who transfers 250MB a month using FTP should pay less than someone who transfers 250MB a month on Youtube?
... assuming I ever let my unlimited data plan lapse :)
Having Verizon and Google make rules about the Web is comparable to having Ford or GM makes rules about auto safety. Public Knowledge has issued a petition on its site to the FCC calling it to "take action now to protect innovation, competition and American broadband consumers" and not allow broadband companies to make rules of their own.
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:
The deal would let ISPs like Verizon -- instead of Internet users like you -- decide which applications deserve the best quality of service.
Non-Discrimination Requirement: In providing broadband Internet access service, a provider would be prohibited from engaging in undue discrimination against any lawful Internet content,application, or service in a manner that causes meaningful harm to competition or to users. Prioritization of Internet traffic would be presumed inconsistent with the non-discrimination standard, but the presumption could be rebutted.
Did you just call me a sheep Tallon? lol.
Anyone opposing the "Open Internet" these two companies are working to provide us are obviously clinging to convoluted conspiracy theories.
the same document that proposed this intriguing idea also included some really terrible ideas. It carves out exemptions from neutrality requirements for so-called "unlawful" content, for wireless services, and for very vaguely-defined "additional online services." The definition of "reasonable network management" is also problematically vague. As many, many, many have already pointed out, these exemptions threaten to completely undermine the stated goal of neutrality.
The proposal has generated howls of anguish from the usual suspects... But after going through the framework and comparing it more-or-less line for line with what the FCC proposed back in October, I found there were very few significant differences.
Surprisingly, much of the outrage being unleashed against the framework relates to provisions and features that are identical to the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which of course many of those yelling the loudest ardently support.