Re: NEWS: Google and Verizon unveil Web plan

GOOGLE-VERIZON PACT: IT GETS WORSE

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
RealPlayer 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 into
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
decide what the rules should be.

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

John Navas wrote:
> GOOGLE-VERIZON PACT: IT GETS WORSE
>
> 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
> RealPlayer 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 into
> 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
> decide what the rules should be.
>
> MORE:
> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-aaron/google-verizon-pact-it-ge_b_676194.html>

The Internet has become so important to daily life that it needs to be
in the "commons" like our highways and away the control of the oligarchs.

On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 19:42:15 -0700, in
<c038o.23468$(E-Mail Removed)>, Bhairitu <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>The Internet has become so important to daily life that it needs to be
>in the "commons" like our highways and away the control of the oligarchs.

More and more countries are coming to see it that way, but don't hold
your breath here, because right-wingers will vigorously oppose anything
so clearly in the public interest. Can you say, "Obamanet"?

--
John

"We have met the enemy and he is us" -Pogo

John Navas wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 19:42:15 -0700, in
> <c038o.23468$(E-Mail Removed)>, Bhairitu <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> The Internet has become so important to daily life that it needs to be
>> in the "commons" like our highways and away the control of the oligarchs.
>
> More and more countries are coming to see it that way, but don't hold
> your breath here, because right-wingers will vigorously oppose anything
> so clearly in the public interest. Can you say, "Obamanet"?
>

Absolutely, right wingers often go against their own best interests. In
this case you might remind them their own web sites (out site the
Murdoch ones) may become difficult to access if there is an end to net
neutrality.

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 11:46:30 -0700, in
<b8h8o.52658$3%(E-Mail Removed)>, Bhairitu <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 19:42:15 -0700, in
>> <c038o.23468$(E-Mail Removed)>, Bhairitu <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The Internet has become so important to daily life that it needs to be
>>> in the "commons" like our highways and away the control of the oligarchs.
>>
>> More and more countries are coming to see it that way, but don't hold
>> your breath here, because right-wingers will vigorously oppose anything
>> so clearly in the public interest. Can you say, "Obamanet"?
>
>Absolutely, right wingers often go against their own best interests. In
>this case you might remind them their own web sites (out site the
>Murdoch ones) may become difficult to access if there is an end to net
>neutrality.

They only go against the best interests of average folks they've duped
into supporting them. Their big donors will ensure they get the
preferential Internet service.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]