Google Public Policy Blog: A joint policy proposal for an open Internet
googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com
googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com
Fifth, we want the broadband infrastructure to be a platform for innovation. Therefore, our proposal would allow broadband providers to offer additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services (such as Verizon's FIOS TV) offered today. This means that broadband providers can work with other players to develop new services. It is too soon to predict how these new services will develop, but examples might include health care monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services, or new entertainment and gaming options. Our proposal also includes safeguards to ensure that such online services must be distinguishable from traditional broadband Internet access services and are not designed to circumvent the rules. The FCC would also monitor the development of these services to make sure they don’t interfere with the continued development of Internet access services.
It seems reasonable, but this is a subtle distinction. Prioritizing internet traffic isn't allowed, but selling services that might get priority over internet traffic is, so long as they aren't called "internet." I guess the hope is that the internet will always be important enough that they'll never throttle the whole thing or risk losing business, hence the FCC monitoring bit at the end.
Is this possible? Anyone remembers exactly how the Google TV pitch was?
I actually like this distinction. It will encourage more broadband rollout as companies add more services that use the same infrastructure but aren't used for just "dumb pipes".
What if you can get the news from a website, or its app? The app "just happens to use IP for the packets".
Thats a loophole now.
If the startup service is using the internet service, and the Internet service is prioritized under the telephone service, indeed it will potentially be slower, but not because the startup is being discriminated against. It would be slower because ALL Internet traffic over that link is discriminated against.
The most likely reality is that any additional services will have a minimum QoS set that is required for a reasonable experience. This would only be hit if the customer premise is utilizing the entirety of the physical connection...essentially they're providing guarantees that TV/Phone/Internet/etc. would work at at least a certain level of quality, which would be at the expense of other services based on what those minimum level of qualities were defined as.
And while today this may sound weird (we are used to have phone connections via our ISP) what happens if tomorrow's technology (say an interactive film) ends up in the same situation? A startup creates a field, just to get squashed by the ISP who picks up the idea (that clearly works) but gets extra priority because it is their own service.
I have TV and Internet services on Telus' network here in Canada (I think they use the same platform that AT&T uses, which is a Microsoft IPTV solution).
TV and Internet come through the same connection at my house as a shared pool of bandwidth. They are sold separately, and TV actually hinders Internet performance.
I have 25Mbps down, total (which is freeeaking awesome for the price, about $50/month). Each HDTV channel used consumes 5Mbps. So if we are watching two TVs, we'll see only 15Mbps remaining for other data services.
I have no issue with this, either in practice or in principle.
In practice, Telus backs up the bandwidth truck and unloads it at my house every month, and I can't consume it all.
In principle, the market will decide whether to support the model longer term.
I for one won't hesitate to turf the dedicated TV services if Internet services can equal it in terms of quality/availability/price. But until then, I'm happy.
Everyone in America hates you right now. Just FYI. :)
Thankfully, the iPad was loaded up with Kindle books beforehand, so the week wasn't a total disaster.
I'll say it again. Google says they want to push network neutrality but they just created a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.
Keep in mind, they did get Verizon to agree to it. That's strictly more restrictions than they've agreed to in the past.
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.
Youtube and FIOS get the fast lane- everyone else gets leftover bandwidth.
The fact of the matter is that it's 2010, and I still have to subscribe to UVerse/Comcast/whatever if I want cable TV, and have to pick from their packages, and endure their stupid upstream contract disputes. If it's all packets, why can't I subscribe to a cable TV provider over the Internet?
Hulu, YouTube, etc. are addressing part of this problem, but anything that puts the legacy carriers at an advantage seems counterproductive to me.
There is no multicast in the public internet so every stream is actually unicast. There are some tricks you can play but it's nothing like PIM on a private network. The public internet would simply fall over if everyone started streaming unicast TV stations from folks like Hulu.
it means if I want to compete with AT & T's 'official' TV service delivered over IP, I have to do so only within the confines offered by the 'Internet' service.
This is a total crock that relies on everyone interpreting 'The Internet' as being the world wide web, and conveniently forgetting the rest.
I understand a lot of people are approaching this from the perspective of "how would this be abused?", but I think there is also worth in thinking about it from the point of an honest businessman in "how do I make sure my customers are guaranteed good service?"
Fifth, we want the broadband infrastructure to be a platform for innovation. Therefore, our proposal would allow broadband providers to offer additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services (such as Verizon's FIOS TV) offered today.
moultano already made one observation [1], I'll add that this point could get even stickier. Say Google partners with Verizon on their Google Health service to create a "Health Channel" service on Verizon, which ensures that subscribers get priority access to health information, you know, because that's important stuff, so it's in the consumer's best interest. And let's say it has enough of a differentiation from general internet access that the FCC allows it. Now, you've effectively prioritized Google Health over any other enterprising startups in the online health record space, which goes completely against the intent of this proposed legislation.
Ok, so maybe the FCC will have the foresight to disallow this type of additional "service". But I have trouble imagining any type of additional service that doesn't somehow encroach on this problem.
Furthermore, I have a little trouble with this bit as well:
The FCC would also monitor the development of these services to make sure they don’t interfere with the continued development of Internet access services.
So, if some communications company currently provides internet access, but then they find that the "added services over IP" space is more profitible than general internet access, it seems they have two choices. Continue pumping resources into their less profitible internet access service such that the FCC is content, or shut down general access completely and ONLY offer the differentiated services. Did I misinterpret this part?
And finally Part 7:
Seventh, and finally, we strongly believe that it is in the national interest for all Americans to have broadband access to the Internet. Therefore, we support reform of the Federal Universal Service Fund, so that it is focused on deploying broadband in areas where it is not now available.
Ah, there's where Google's agenda becomes apparent within this legislation (you know, in addition to the fact that they've always been publicly pro-net-neutrality). Of course, I like this part of their agenda, so more power to them.
Google is officially evil.
How would I differentiate evil from a good faith attempt. (According to your definition.)
Your broadband provider is in the unique position of having super-cheap bandwidth directly to you, cheaper and faster than the vanilla internet they can provide. They'll be forbidden to prioritise one site over another, or to discriminate against individual sites. The question really is, do you want to forbid them from selling useful services based around this cheap bandwidth? That's what IPTV and health imaging are all about.
Enterprising startups in these spaces already have barriers to entry based around cost. They can either wait for the bandwidth to become cheaper, try to cut similar deals, or come up with a way of providing these services without the same bandwidth needs.
And I'll use the money you pay for my privileged services to reduce the price for internet access..
On the other hand Google/Verizon agrees that we need to thank the openness of the Internet for the current amazing spread of the net.
It seems a bit of a weak argument to be honest.
What's your argument?
Wireless might be restricted by spectrum licenses, but there are usually a number of options.
I don't debate that wireline is less competitive (again, in the USA), I argue that wireless is not so different, and in particular so much more competitive, as to need no regulation.
Not anymore. We'll probably get 4G fairly soon just because 3G capacity is already getting taxed but going forward wireless providers can simply gimp traffic to save money on infrastructure improvements. What incentive is there to push forward on 5G when you can just go tell the network engineers to adjust a few variables and save you billions of dollars? Of course if Google or some other gigantic company wants to pay to have that variable turned down less aggressively that seems to be fair game. I can't believe how naive/dishonest Google is being about this.
To my mind this does not address the issues honestly. The basic issue: Laying cable is expensive, but the marginal cost of fiber over bandwidth can be driven down in a variety of ways, and we have abundant fiber and rapid progress in photonics improving it at least as fast as Moore's law.
Wireless spectrum, by contrast, is horrifically expensive. These two companies own a lot of both, and would like to trade the uncertainty of the auction model for a set of agreed industrial targets.
Some parts are a joke, like the FCC having the authority to fine companies up to $2m after investigating bandwidth abuses on a case-by-case basis. Verizon has annual revenues of about $27 billion; a $2m cap is about as imposing as a nerf gun.
Does V-Cast ship on Droids?
In other words why won't a competitor come along and offer a neutral service if some providers start throttling?
I must be missing something in the argument, broadband companies don't have monopolies do they?
In most areas of the US they do.
And when supply is very limited, and you know that it will be very very hard for anyone else to enter the market, then you oligopolies can appear.
That said, I don't know the USA market enough to say if they currently have a monopoly or not, or if they are colluding or not.
I think my original comment was just wrong....
Carry on!
• 512Kbps to anywhere
• 10Mbps+ to select sites like ESPN, YouTube, and others who agree to subsidize the service costs in proportion to use
Why should this be illegal, as long as everything's disclosed up front?
Free weekly newspapers exist in most major cities. They are -- gasp! -- entirely advertising-supported. That money could chill speech! It could drive small operators who can't afford to advertise out of business! Perhaps we should ban that dangerous business model.
And yet, those weeklies present a lot of interesting commentary. And help a lot of businesses thrive. Turns out, the payola pays for a lot of community benefit.
There's a lot of fearmongering going on about how small changes in the internet delivery/pricing model will destroy everything good about the internet. That's irrational paranoia.
The internet will survive whatever conspiracies Verizon, AT&T, Disney, and Google dream up -- as long as their backroom strategizing isn't carved into federal law via regulatory capture.
And if the incumbents manage to shake down customers for a few more dollars -- that will incent the creation of the next generation of route-around communication technologies.
There is much evidence that newspapers because newspapers are heavily dependent on their revenue from advertisement (around 70%-80%), advertisements have a lot of power over them.
Examples are when CBS could not broadcast a documentary on the environmental damages done by large industries (we are talking a few decades ago), or when newspapers did not report many of the evidence on tobacco's damage. In Italy Berlusconi even went as far as asking his industry friends to stop advertising in the newspapers who wrote stories against the government in an attempt to shut opposition.
So there's ample evidence that the strong dependence on advertisement has damaged free speech.
Until the Internet came along though, there was no alternative. As you point out without advertisements' revenues free newspapers would not exist. That is because printing newspapers and broadcasting tv shows is very capital intensive. But the Internet is making publishing costs very low, and hence letting everyone have a word (as shown by blogs or comment boxes such as this).
Yet that's what net neutrality advocates like inklesspen above are saying we should do to network providers. They want subsidized-service models like I proposed banned, simply because it could lead to some 'chilled' speech and corporate influence.
Speech and the internet are tougher than that; they don't need 5 political-party-hack lawyer-appointees in DC -- aka the FCC -- to protect them (when there's time between handing out broadcast-indecency fines).
And the traditional businesses of course aren't "open".. hence the much higher barrier to entry and success than on internet.
If lack of competition is the problem, address that, don't try to simulate competition via slow, often braindead, eventually-twisted-against-upstarts regulation.
Hence these few companies would have lockin on infrastructure critical for future innovations like Virtual reality, 3D games, High def videos etc.,
And so the internet would not be open anymore. And so it wouldn't be called internet.
Instead, just like pay-for-placement helped pay for city daily newspapers, free-over-the-air radio and TV, and storefront bookstores, pay-for-priority on the internet could subsidize new last-mile capacity and services. But based on concocted nightmare scenarios, net-neutrality regulators want to preclude all experimentation into such models.
Most of the explanations i see in the internet about net neutrality deals with only content downloaded or streamed from public online services. I think it is ironic.
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 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.
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.
All of the above is the most evil thing I have heard being said about the internet!
Uh, why?
Why such a low figure, we are dealing with massive corporations who would notice 2 millions as much as I would notice 2 dollars.
The general public, that is people like me and you, would need to depend on the FCC, and have no rights, which is not quite understandable. Why should I not be able to sue them for discriminating against me? Because of course Verizon is a party to the "law proposal".
Besides, there are exceptions clearly. The FCC would need to enlarge very much if they are to deal with all the complains and have the time to analyse them and follow them through and in the end only be able to impose a miniscule fine.
Not to mention that the providers would have the authority to outright prioritise internet traffic provided they go through some hoops and any lawyer would know just how difficult that is.
I don't know enough law to understand the granularity of this. Is it 2M per infringement? Could the potentially be shelling out 2M per customer? It seems like this is what would determine whether it's a high cap or a low cap.
Are you this guy?
I was hardly thinking of taxes and I am not American so I do not care much about that aspect, but it would cost more in taxes as the FCC would need to become a much larger entity.
I simply think that all of it kind of sounds like a compromise but when you look it from the perspective of a lawyer it has no teeth. It is a bit like saying the judiciary is independent but the president can set the salary of any individual judge.
I do not quite understand to be honest why would we need the FCC to be a middle man and why would the Non Discriminatory paragraph not grant rights to individuals. Any other entity than the court is very different. A court has the protection of contempt of court, it has the luxury of developing the law through applying it to specific cases, and its independence is enshrined in law and in the culture of the judiciary.
The whole statement is engaged in double speak and you would really need to be a lawyer to understand they are fooling people. The FCC might take test cases to court, but being a test case the court would be much more confined than if it was a specific case. So it would have to interpret the provisions strictly, including what does meaningful harm mean, which was downvoted in another comment but when you are dealing with the law such a thing as meaningful has quite a significance. You aren't talking to your friend and yeah we get the idea. You are trying to apply the law to facts and the facts can be very diverse and to find that meaningful threshold where it differs with insignificance takes many years and many highest level court judgements.
That is only one point. Each sentence if scrutinised carefully shows you how the statement has more holes than cheese and just how fundamentally different and much the worse the internet would be.
Finally, it is a matter of principle that no differences whatever should there be on the internet. I do not understand why anyone would support any traffic prioritization at all. Performing surgery one might say, I say let us get to that point first. To make a phone call to your granma, what is that more important than me getting the research when the paper is in due tomorrow and otherwise I would fail? To invest in the infrastructure and make it better! Why I'd much rather it develops as it has been. My internet is quite fast and it is just average package.
I do not understand why would anyone support any deal whatever between two giant and self interested companies which clearly have in mind screwing the public. If you think that is merely speculation, I repeat again the FCC has stepped in and stopped the talks because they, and as it seemed rightly thought, were conspiring against the public.
If the Internet existed to serve some obvious goal, it would be trivial to determine whether prioritizing packets would help or hinder its achievement, but as far as I can tell, It does not exist to accomplish any obvious goal. The net neutrality debate is essentially the Internet's own existential conflict.
Part of the supporting argument in favor of net neutrality says that prioritizing packets would not be wise because we cannot predict what the Internet will be used for in the future, and that those packet prioritization rules will inevitably end up in conflict with the goals of future internet users. (eg. The I. doesn't know what it want's to be when it grows up. boo hoo)
Ironically (is it?) the very act of prioritizing communications in any way, would set the I. on a one way path towards serving a particular purpose, settling the issue of whether it should have done so in the first place. (eg. The I. wants to be a good targeted advertising delivery system, nothing else.)
So what is at stake for the Internet is that same thing that is at stake when a conscious person has a mental breakdown over the purpose of their life.
"the presumption could be rebutted" - Of course. To save the children I am sure, we must always think of the children! - and fat pockets.
"reasonable network management "includes"... to ensure service quality to a subscriber" - What kind of subscriber is he? Could google be a subscriber? Could an internet content provider be a subscriber? I mean, the presumption can be rebutted to save the children as we said!
"to prioritize general classes or types of Internet traffic" - well finally. You could not hide it much longer could you?
"could make use of or access Internet content, applications or services and could include traffic prioritization" Now what you even use the real deal word?
"Wireless Broadband" - Meh, these guys can be the third class citizens, we are only worrying about the second class citizens right now.
" community governance initiatives, and the FCC would be directed to give appropriate deference to decisions or advisory opinions of such groups." - Yeah community, that is, well, what is it? What is a community? What is a governance initiative? Can there be a google governance initiative? Of course to take care of us all.
"forfeiture of up to $2,000,000 for knowing violations of the consumer-protection or non-discrimination provisions" - how much? No I mean if I ear $1000 dollars and get "punished" by being charged $2 I would most definitely be deterred. Perhaps about three more 0s should be added seeing as it is "knowingly violating".
"would not create any new private right of action" - of course not, why would big daddy give the little kids any rights! They will think of the children we are all sure.
We knew you would be selling your soul soon google, but so early? What happened to our romance, was it just a blip, you want to join the evil side too?
Also, why would you do this, why would you just tell the world how self interested you are when the FCC has stopped the talks because and I roughly quote "the guys were becoming bad and greedy.