Google Goes Against Net Neutrality

[Yakinator]

Google, one of the most prominent "supporters" of net neutrality has signed a deal with Verizon.The proposal is an a cleverly disguised attempt by Google and Verizon to violate the net neutrality while acting like they support it for several reasons. Net Neutrality says that broadband providers should not abuse their power and discriminate against legal websites and user.

Here are several excerpts from the proposals


"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."


This basically says that although the FCC can monitor broadband networks, they have no power to enforce net neutrality rules.


"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."

This says that net neutrality does not apply to wireless networks. This is a big deal since many people use the Internet on their mobile devices.


"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."

This means that ISPs such as Verizon can create additional services such as 3D Internet TV where the rules of Net Neutrality do not apply.



"The FCC could impose a forfeiture of up to $2,000,000 for knowing violations of the consumer-protection or non-discrimination provisions."

This is almost nothing for large companies such as Google and Verizon which make billions of dollars per year, and will not be an incentive for them to not violate net neutrality.



Here is a link to the proposal.

http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-for-open-internet.html

 

[Cull]

This is just two big companies abusing the system. I don't see what makes this so special.

 

[Cynovolans]

Bing is indeed the future.

 

[Cull]

Google>>>>>>>>>>Bing.

I really don't care if Google wants to abuse the system. As long as they provide their search engine and email for free, whatever.

 

[Cynovolans]

Google is old and shows nothing but useless spam links.

Bing is everything.

 

[W|M]

google is something everyone recognises and uses. Plus it has some great services, and is going to make a Google TV in the future (I saw it in Stuff, the most successful gadjet magazine there is).

 

[Cynovolans]

But it ruined Youtube!

 

[Yakinator]

Google>>>>>>>>>>Bing.

I really don't care if Google wants to abuse the system. As long as they provide their search engine and email for free, whatever.

If this agreement comes anywhere close to becoming law, it will be a disaster for Internet freedom.

Google will keep search and email free but will abuse it to improve its own position. Google can decide one day that it will not include any pages on this site on its search unless the site's owners pay money. As a result we will have to be faced with significantly fewer people visiting this site or having to deal with more advertisements/subscription fees.

 

[Cull]

So what? Then some dude makes the next Google, and Google is abandoned at then 2 billion looks like a lot.

 

[Yakinator]

So what? Then some dude makes the next Google, and Google is abandoned at then 2 billion looks like a lot.

There is no way that is going to happen without Net Neutrality. Broadband companies will charge websites for faster loading speeds, which will severely hurt the efforts of anyone trying to make the next Google.

 

[GoodGame]

Google>>>>>>>>>>Bing.

I really don't care if Google wants to abuse the system. As long as they provide their search engine and email for free, whatever.

But if they block you getting to the content that you want, it's worthless.

But as Google isn't the sole window to the world, it's more likely only to work in subtle ways, such as manipulating political opinion (e.g. burying certain storeies). If Google abuses the power overtly, it will just create market demand for new search engines, new providers.

 

[Cull]

If they block it, make a different engine. If that doesn't work, suck it up and go through websites to find what you want.

 

[warpus]

You don't really understand what net neutrality is or at least what the implications of us losing it are, Cull.

 

[Mise]

You don't really understand what net neutrality is or at least what the implications of us losing it are, Cull.

I admit, I have absolutely no idea what's going on here. What's net neutrality? What do the bolding things mean? Can someone explain please?

 

[bhsup]

You know, somebody has to pay for the internet. I am not sure why I should be opposed to net-NONneutrality.

 

[woody60707]

I admit, I have absolutely no idea what's going on here. What's net neutrality? What do the bolding things mean? Can someone explain please?

"Hey do you know corporations could be doing X to the internet. OMG, really! I can't believe they are doing that. Well no, they aren't doing that, but they could be doing that, maybe. So we need to pass Net Neutrality laws now, you know, just in case after 20yrs of your ISP not doing this but could be-ish"

Net Neutrality = Making it a law that ISP's give the same priority (speed) to all websites. <---ISP's do this now. (the details on Net Neutrality very from who your asking, but that's it in a nutshell)

 

[GoodGame]

You know, somebody has to pay for the internet. I am not sure why I should be opposed to net-NONneutrality.

I'd say that is a strawman since we could also argue that subscribers are the ultimate payees and should have completely transarent freedom of choice. And also the government licenses the right to the airwaves.

But we also have to consider that we're just talking about wireless internet which is running off a privately-run network and isn't the traditional internet, from what I gather.

Probably one reason would be that one wants their news services to give equal opportunity to all stories. "Fair and balanced" and all that.

I'd be most concerned from the point of view of a nationalist state purchasing the rights to a corporation that provides the internet and using that as an engine to distort the news. I think that's the baseline fear with "net neutrality" as well as an adversion to censorship in general.

 

[bhsup]

Okay, if you think that is a strawman, how about just good old fashioned supply and demand? Why should we interfere with market forces dictating things? I get the feeling all the arguments for net neutrality will just boil down to "it isn't fair". Well, life isn't.

 

[Riffraff]

Okay, if you think that is a strawman, how about just good old fashioned supply and demand? Why should we interfere with market forces dictating things? I get the feeling all the arguments for net neutrality will just boil down to "it isn't fair". Well, life isn't.

No reason why the is should be the ought.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

Well I already made my mind up about the FCC. They are the only last vangaurd of defending net-neutrality. They do have pretty much have de facto powers to prevent this, or we will see not only this happening, but a possible erosion of what we all have now as we all take for granted right now.