View Full Version : Google-Verizon Net Neutrality Deal

10th August 10, 09:10 AM
tl;dr - Google and Verizon got together to decide what they think network neutrality means. Below is their proposed legislative framework. Naturally, this has got a lot of people up in arms. However, aside from the rather obvious "why are two multinationals presuming to dictate legislative policy to congress?" I think this document is far too vague to contain the threats it is accused of (e.g. prioritization of traffic).

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

Verizon-Google Legislative Framework Proposal

Google and Verizon have been working together to find ways to preserve the open Internet and the vibrant and innovative markets it supports, to protect consumers, and to promote continued investment in broadband access. With these goals in mind, together we offer a proposed open Internet framework for the consideration of policymakers and the public.
We believe such a framework should include the following key elements:
Consumer Protections: A broadband Internet access service provider would be prohibited from

preventing users of its broadband Internet access service from--
(1) sending and receiving lawful content of their choice;
(2) running lawful applications and using lawful services of their choice; and
(3) connecting their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network or
service, facilitate theft of service, or harm other users of the 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.
Transparency: Providers of broadband Internet access service would be required todisclose
accurate and relevant information in plain language about the characteristics and capabilities of
their offerings, their broadband network management, and other practices necessary for
consumers and other users to make informed choices.
Network Management: 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 providerís
network, or the Internet; to ensure service quality to a subscriber; to provide services or
capabilities consistent with a consumerís 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
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.
Wireless Broadband: 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.
Case-By-Case Enforcement: The FCC would enforce the consumer protection and nondiscrimination requirements through case-by-case adjudication, but would have no
rulemaking authority with respect to those provisions. Parties would be encouraged to use non-
governmental dispute resolution processes established by independent, widely-recognized
Internet community governance initiatives, and the FCC would be directed to give appropriate
deference to decisions or advisory opinions of such groups. The FCC could grant injunctive
relief for violations of the consumer protection and non-discrimination provisions. The FCC
could impose a forfeiture of up to $2,000,000 for knowing violations of the consumer-protection
or non-discrimination provisions. The proposed framework would not affect rights or
obligations under existing Federal or State laws that generally apply to businesses, and would not
create any new private right of action.
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.
Broadband Access for Americans: Broadband Internet access would be eligible for Federal

universal service fund support to spur deployment in unserved areas and to support programs to
encourage broadband adoption by low-income populations. In addition, the FCC would be
required to complete intercarrier compensation reform within 12 months. Broadband Internet
access service and traffic or services using Internet protocol would be considered exclusively
interstate in nature. In general, broadband Internet access service providers would ensure that
the service is accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
10th August 10, 09:49 AM
Fuck 'em

10th August 10, 09:52 AM
I don't think it matters

10th August 10, 10:41 AM
ummmm... what?

10th August 10, 10:51 AM
It means 'kind of what we'd do now, but we'd like the federal government to provide money to get more people using broadband'

10th August 10, 10:57 AM
how retarded.

10th August 10, 11:01 AM
It means 'kind of what we'd do now, but we'd like the federal government to provide money to get more people using broadband'

Yes, that's more or less what I read into it. Also read "and we're going to leave a couple of loopholes in case we change our mind on that whole neutrality thing." What people seem to be the most pissy about, however, is the whole "Additional Online Services" bit which N.N. proponents are saying constitutes a tiered Internet. Don't know that I buy that, nor do I think one can reasonably bar companies from developing their own online services- it would be as wrong as barring private citizens from, say, using packet radio.

10th August 10, 11:17 AM
There's no reason why any private company would need to make their 'additional services' available to everybody. We already have a 'tiered internet' in that regard, it's what subscription sites are.

10th August 10, 12:21 PM
I have loved watching google using the free software idiots as sock puppets during this debate. I guess now a few of them are going to realize that they are sitting on an elbow.