Google and Verizon set to create internet 2

clarky003

clarky003

Tank
Joined
Nov 8, 2003
Messages
6,123
Reaction score
1
What a bunch of bullshit. In the end you only have so much bandwidth. What this deal would do is break that bandwidth down to a tier service and an open service. Basically killing net neutrality. As applications require more and more bandwidth Verizon will only allow the really bandwidth intensive stuff to be accessible at a premium.

They'll give you a "open" 1.5 Mbit connection lets say which is fine if you just want to stream regular quality video. But to stream HD you need much more bandwidth and they will tell you that the only way to get that bandwidth is to join their own tier based internet where you don't pay for network access but instead of access to websites.

And the fact google is on board with this is really disappointing.
 
I've spoken to a fair few people about it and they say the same thing. Infact quite a few are disgusted enough at the idea that they are boycotting google and verizon searches.

I mean why not improve the net as it is in general, which is benificial to all and stays true to the origins and design of the internet as was intended. Besides we already pay enough to access it as it is.

But no they want to create a new one, which lets face it.. the primary motivation seems to be more in line with allowing them to better regulate and collect consumer data in a more efficient manor.
 
I still think the journalists are missing something here.

Google doesn't win anything in making a deal like this - what's the point, then?
 
Kinslayer said:
I still think the journalists are missing something here.

Google doesn't win anything in making a deal like this - what's the point, then?
Click to expand...

Yes they do. Verizon has been one of the largest supporters of Android out there. Without Verizon android wouldn't have the largest market share this early on.
 
No Limit said:
Yes they do. Verizon has been one of the largest supporters of Android out there. Without Verizon android wouldn't have the largest market share this early on.
Click to expand...

Verizon wireless and Verizon are almost completely separate entities. They share nothing but the name, as Verizon has no operational role in Verizon Wireless.

With Google avoiding the wireless side, it really doesn't make any sense.

Since that article was before the announcement, here's his followup article. I haven't read it yet, doing so now.

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Enterprise...ity-Plan-Brings-Anguished-Accusations-455986/

also his article right after the announcement

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Government-IT/Google-Verizon-Net-Neutrality-Plans-Are-Announced-279283/
 
Verizon has a huge stake in verizon wireless (the majority, no?).

And isn't one of the points of the deal here to classify wireless as a different form of internet, out of reach of the FCC?
 
Edit #2: I believe this is the actual release: http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-for-open-internet.html

No Limit said:
Verizon has a huge stake in verizon wireless (the majority, no?).

And isn't one of the points of the deal here to classify wireless as a different form of internet, out of reach of the FCC?
Click to expand...

1) I don't think so, at least not from what I've read on the issue. I don't claim to know all that much about it other than what this guy and another article I can't find at the moment say.

2) Yes, but everyone seems to be getting their balls tied up about the wired part, which is a much bigger part of the proposal.

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Government-IT/Google-Verizon-Net-Neutrality-Plans-Are-Announced-279283/ said:
In addition to making their policy statement clear, the companies specifically and repeatedly said there was no business deal involved. The CEOs also repeated that there was no place for paid prioritization of content, and that while individual carriers could provide content to their own customers, such content should not take away bandwidth or otherwise degrade traffic on the open Internet.

Both companies called on the Federal Communications Commission to create enforceable rules ensuring an open Internet with significant penalties for what they referred to as "bad actors."

"We believe very strongly that the openness principles should be fully enforceable," Schmidt said.

Their plan would also provide enforceable prohibition of any move by an Internet provider against openness, Schmidt said. He said there would be no blocking or degrading, and paid prioritization would be against the law.
Click to expand...

Edit: Actually, no to #2. Only Verizon wants to keep the wireless part away from the rest of the release, and Google likely had to give in to reach compromise on the wired part.
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Government-IT/Google-Verizon-Net-Neutrality-Plans-Are-Announced-279283/ said:
The joint statement and the statements by Schmidt and Seidenberg also reiterated their belief that wireless communications should be included in the proposed net neutrality rules, although Seidenberg said he felt that the wireless arena was slightly different from the wire-line world, with different technology, a different state of competition and different interactive capabilities, and said he was concerned that too many rules would stifle competition.
Click to expand...

It sounds like this issue has been the victim of poor journalism to me. Also keep in mind that this is the first of probably many proposals - it has good and it has bad, just like any other proposal.
 
I looked it up and Verizon does hold a majority stake in verizon wireless, 55%.

We can look at what Google and Verizon say about this as well as the various "news" articles on it. But the easiest thing would be to simply look at their proposal and decide for ourselves since it's only 2 pages long:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35599242/Verizon-Google-Legislative-Framework-Proposal

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.
Click to expand...

Pretty much what this means is providers should not prioritize traffic unless they choose to prioritze traffic. Gee, thanks google.

Broadband Internet access service providers are permitted to engage in reasonable network management. Reasonable network management includes any technically sound practice: to reduce or mitigate the effects of congestion on its network; to ensure network security or integrity; to address traffic that is unwanted by or harmful to users, the provider’s
network, or the Internet; to ensure service quality to a subscriber; to provide services or capabilities consistent with a consumer’s choices; that is consistent with the technical requirements, standards, or best practices adopted by an independent, widely-recognized Internet
community governance initiative or standard-setting organization; to prioritize general classes or types of Internet traffic, based on latency; or otherwise to manage the daily operation of its network.
Click to expand...

So again, google thinks ISPs should be allowed to prioritize traffic at their own will as long as they are transparent about it.

And they want to exclude wireless from any protections aside from the transparency clause:

Because of the unique technical and operational characteristics of wireless networks, and the competitive and still-developing nature of wireless broadband services, only the transparency principle would apply to wireless broadband at this time. The U.S. Government Accountability Office would report to Congress annually on the continued development and robustness of wireless broadband Internet access services.
Click to expand...

This is a huge deal. Within another 1-2 years tethering on your phone will be included as part of your data plan (I have no source for this, just an educated opinion on my part). If that turns out to be the case I gurantee you that within another 5-10 years wireless broadband will have more users than wired broadband. And according to google this wireless network, which connects to the exact same internet, shouldn't have any kind of protection aside from making the ISP's policy transparent.

There is absolutely no excuse for any of this. After all the years google spent fighting for net neutrality they are now throwing it under the bus so they could cash in on it. We can pretend that there must be a really good and valid reason for Google to do this, there isn't. It's about the money.
 
Well, Google does own an insane amount of dark fiber.
 
I'm not sure I understand this correctly. They want to make an additional internet, working parallel to the current one, that would be paid access only?

How would that be anything other than a commercial flop? What company would want to limit their consumer base to just those who pay a premium for internet access? Companies already have free access to everybody who uses this current version of the internet, so whats the point? Just higher bandwidth? Seems stupid, since ISPs working on the open internet could just increase their speeds and negate any benefit of this new internet, and keep all their customers, plus I can't see very many companies requiring more bandwidth than we already have. Maybe sites that stream blu-ray movies would want it, but the vast majority of websites don't need much bandwidth at all, certainly not enough to justify creating a whole new infrastructure.
 
Think of it as your cable's on demand service but using the internet. They will take bandwidth they could have used for regular internet and they will asign it to a tier based service where content providers will have to pay them a premium to use. I don't know their business plan for this, I would assume they wouldn't charge the user but the content provider. But a premium for the user is possible too. This way lets say you want to watch Hulu in HD. Verizon could decide not to give you the bandwidth for that on their regular internet and force you to have to buy their premium internet or force hulu to pay additional fees.

But this is a smoke screen, the real shock is the actual proposal for the so called "open internet". The proposal they released would kill net neutrality.
 
How do they "take" bandwidth from the regular internet if they're building new, and entirely separate infrastructure to run this second internet on?
 
Did you even read (comprehend) the proposal you posted? Most of it is built to eliminate what you just described, although it does include a fairly large loophole.
 
Krynn72 said:
How do they "take" bandwidth from the regular internet if they're building new, and entirely separate infrastructure to run this second internet on?
Click to expand...

There is nothing in the proposal about them building seperate infrastructure for this. And the wired article says the plan would involve using existing optical fiber for it.
 
Kinslayer said:
Did you even read (comprehend) the proposal you posted? Most of it is built to eliminate what you just described, although it does include a fairly large loophole.
Click to expand...

Huh? I think I did a pretty good job explaining what I posted, if you want to elaborate by all means do by responding to what I posted. It doesn't contain just one huge loop hole (about legal traffic), the entire proposal is filled with loopholes. Everything from excluding wireless broadband networks from any protections (aside from transparancy) and allowing ISPs to decide what they need to prioritze to "reasonably" manage their network.
 
No Limit said:
There is nothing in the proposal about them building seperate infrastructure for this. And the wired article says the plan would involve using existing optical fiber for it.
Click to expand...

I thought thats what this meant.

The easiest way to create this second, paid internet would be to create physically- or logically-distinct pipes the way Verizon already divides up its Fios services over fiber optic cables today, said Free Press policy council Chris Riley.
Click to expand...
 
The key phrase there is "or logically". Nothing in the verizon/google proposal talks about a seperate physical network. And I doubt Verizon is about to recreate the entire internet infrastructure so they can offer "premium" internet content.

From the actual proposal:

Additional Online Services: A provider that offers a broadband Internet access service complying with the above principles could offer any other additional or differentiated services.
Such other services would have to be distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband Internet access service, but could make use of or access Internet content, applications or services and could include traffic prioritization. The FCC would publish an annual report on the effect of these additional services, and immediately report if it finds at any time that these services threaten the meaningful availability of broadband Internet access services or have been devised or promoted in a manner designed to evade these consumer protections.
Click to expand...
 
All I know is, if we are all a touch confused debating the logic of their decision to create a parrallel network/internet then how can they possibly state that they are putting the consumer first?. It makes little to no sense whatsoever.

It is more obviously in their interests to create another service however so they can effectively start the ball rolling on a process of subverting the origional infrastructure to create a centralised system. Where all traffic goes through them and the NSA partnership with google plus its shareholders get to decide what gets filtered out of their internet service and what doesn't.
 
Sounds like dismantling to me at this point and time
 
I'd be happy as long as I can get broadband at this point. I really don't care about paying a premium to stream videos in HD when I'm having trouble getting broadband in the first place.

Seems to me these companies have their priorities messed up. They just need to focus on what the U.S. DoT has laid out and continue with the 'omnibus broadband initiative' and start laying that damned fiber optic cabling so my neighborhood can get f**king broadband already.

EDIT> You know what? Virgin mobile is offering a flat rate unlimited plan for a broadband adapter at only 40$ starting 9/10, so f**k our local DSL company. I'm going wireless.

I'll switch as soon as the omnibus initiative bears results. Also, what I'm paying right now just for dial-up should be a crime. 38$ a month which includes the ISP service and the second land-line for the PC, so you guys shouldn't be complaining tbh.
 
That's kind of short sighted thinking. On top of that net neutrality does not get in the way of expanding network coverage. What area are you in that still doesn't have some form of broadband? I find that amazing.
 
No Limit said:
That's kind of short sighted thinking. On top of that net neutrality does not get in the way of expanding network coverage. What area are you in that still doesn't have some form of broadband? I find that amazing.
Click to expand...
I don't live in the suburbs like most of you guys probably do. You should know that smaller communities and rural areas in the US are nearly still in the dark ages.

Also not so surprising when you consider that the US, which was once the industry leading nation in telecommunications, has dropped from the top 3 to around 15-20. according to Forbes.
More proof that this country is going down the proverbial commode.
 
I feel your pain. I still remember the day I switched from dial up to cable, I hold that day around a decade ago close to my heart. Hopefully with wireless getting a much bigger expension you will have much more options soon. I'm sure you already know this but Dish allows you to get internet using satellite which isn't all that fast but it's a hell lot faster than dialup.

http://www.dishnetwork.com/internet/internetComparison/default.aspx

Looking at the prices though and it's kind of a rip off.
 
No Limit said:
I feel your pain. I still remember the day I switched from dial up to cable, I hold that day around a decade ago close to my heart. Hopefully with wireless getting a much bigger expension you will have much more options soon. I'm sure you already know this but Dish allows you to get internet using satellite which isn't all that fast but it's a hell lot faster than dialup.

http://www.dishnetwork.com/internet/internetComparison/default.aspx

Looking at the prices though and it's kind of a rip off.
Click to expand...
Goddamn those prices suck.

It's not even that fast, nor are any of those offers unlimited. Are they purposely taking advantage of saps like us who don't have ready access to broadband or what? :frown:
It's almost as ridiculous as Hughes Net. Oh well, when Sep 10 rolls around and Virgin mobile switches to their 40$ a month unlimited wireless plan, I'm hopping aboard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top