SAVE THE INTERNET - SEND A MESSAGE TO THE FCC RIGHT NOW~!!!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-aaron/google-verizon-pact-it-ge_b_676194.html
Here are the basics of what Google and Verizon 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 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.
If you havn't told the FCC why we need Net Neutrality yet please do it now: http://savetheinternet.com/fcc-comments
10 Comments
JiggaJonsonI have NEVER used my *sticky powers before, but I wanted to make sure this was up for a bit. Feel free to strike me down but know this, if you do, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
siftbotStickying this post at the top of Sift Talk - sticky requested by JiggaJonson.
PsychologicThere is an article over at Engadget that explains the proposal pretty well.
Verizon doesn't want neutrality on their wireless network, but any prioritization they do would have to be completely transparent to the public, so nothing would be a secret about what was going on. They also wouldn't be able to prohibit any legal data streams or prevent any legal devices from connecting.
I am curious to see the FCC's stance on the proposal.
demon_ixFucking Google... Fanboy status - deactivate
blankfistNah. I'm more fearful of a monolithic bureaucracy like the FCC than a Google + Verizon take over. Have we forgotten the atrocities they committed in the name of censorship? They should call it the Federal Christian Committee.
marinarai have an top ten diary over at FDL on this.
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/64504/
thanks for the sticky, Jigga
Croccydile says...What puzzles me about this is how Google had been buying up alot of dark fiber back in the day (remember then?) they could be their own ISP practically and avoid this mess. As far as the FCC and censoring you can blame organizations like the American Family Association and the like for organized "outrage" spam. Who is to say Google won't eventually cave to the same demands? A few years ago if you wrote how Google was going to be dealing against net neutrality you would have been eaten alive by fanboys.
Either way this is worrysome if it gets to the point you have to pay extra to use the "rest of the internet" thats outside of the Google domain. The "we wont do this, pinky swear" clause of vagueness reeks of what we saw in the 90s.
This all comes from an industry we as a country paid billions for from the same time period and now the providers want to eat their cake and have it too. Perhaps this is the end result of over a decade of overselling bandwidth.
I remember when using a fat connection back in the day (> 10mbit university, 1999) the Internet seemed almost instantaneous compared to dial-up. Now if you try to actually use your connection the result is "lol, psych" and the provider thinking you are a bandwith hog.
<sarcasm>I can't wait till I have to pay the Netflix bandwidth surcharge fee of $5.99 per gigabyte along with the Potential Pirated Content fee at $19.99 per gigabyte and Just Because You Have No Choice fee of $49.99 per month</sarcasm>
deedub81Bandwidth is a huge issue when it comes to wireless networks. I understand that they have to do something until the wireless technologies get better at transferring data more quickly.
This sounds scary, but I think we're all underestimating the competition that exists within the wireless world. Besides, it's hard to silence something when the majority of internet browsing takes place over wired ISPs (in which neutrality is the law).
UsesProzac*quality
siftbotAwarding JiggaJonson with one star point for this contribution to VideoSift - declared quality by UsesProzac.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.