EFF Review of Verizon and Google's Net Neutrality Proposal
eff.org
eff.org
While I share the EFF's concerns about loopholes in any proposal, I have to give them some pushback on their criticisms of the "lawful content" provision. While it may be true that this part of the policy could be abused, this clause has to be in any proposal-- I can't imagine Google or Verizon's legal departments would sign off on anything different.
Having said that, the EFF's claim that "lawful content" is insufficiently vague does seem fair. (Although I'd argue that it is pretty self-explanatory as-is).
Overall, what makes this analysis different than so many other is its emphasis on giving Google/Verizon clear suggestions on how to make their proposal better, rather than simply decrying its very existence.
Really? That seemed the least substantial to me: this is a proposal to the US Congress. It seemed obvious that "lawful" means "what our legislators in Congress deem lawful" in that context.
<insert disclaimer about these opinions being my own and not my employer's>
Verizon have consistently used the "we're blocking illegal filesharing" line as justification for throttling BitTorrent traffic. Under the Google/Verizon deal, the FCC would have no power to say "No, actually BitTorrent is legal traffic", and it would be necessary for individuals to complain about the throttling, and most likely in the process be asked to demonstrate their particular use of BitTorrent was legal.
With the maximum payout capped at $2m, there would have to be a lot of BitTorrent users with significant grounds for complaint _and_ a carefully squeaky-clean file-sharing record before it cost the company more than they were saving from throttling the traffic in the first place.
Other than that, a level headed, smart interpretation of the proposal by the EFF.