This Evil Plan Must Not Come To Pass!

It was only a matter of time before the corporations would figure out how to control the Internet and subsequently make money from it.

Editor              

Last week, Verizon and Google proposed a plan they say could keep the Internet open while supporting investment in high-speed Internet service.*

Verizon has the nation’s biggest wireless network while Google is the biggest Internet search engine. The proposal was a surprise because the two companies have been on opposite sides of the debate over net neutrality.

That is until they figured out that by working together they could  screw the people  and make a ton of money at the same time!

Editor              

That is the idea that all content on the Web should be treated equally.

Internet service providers want to be able to charge more for heavy Internet traffic or users who want special services. The Federal Communications Commission regulates telephone, cable and satellite communications. But its power to regulate Internet service has been questioned in the courts.

The new proposal calls for rules barring service providers from preventing users from sending and receiving legal information of any kind. Users also could not be prevented from linking any application, service or device they choose to the Web.

And broadband Internet providers would be barred from discriminating against content and would have to be open about their policies.

Supporters of net neutrality criticized the proposal for not including wireless providers. Wireless broadband is among the fastest growing parts of the Internet.

Others oppose the creation of a “two-tiered” system on the Internet in which some content gets a fast lane and other content goes slowly. But Daniel Brenner says such a system already exists.

DANIEL BRENNER: “In some ways there are two tiers today. In other words, there’s the public Internet which we all use for Web surfing, e-mail and sometimes for voice. And then there are managed networks.”

Daniel Brenner is a partner at the law firm Hogan Lovells in Washington. He says service providers want to be able to charge more because they build networks out to their customers across the country. Such companies are the so-called “last mile” providers.

But, the Internet is really a network of networks which exchange traffic all the time and compete with each other. And not all networks reach the last mile to a customer’s door.

Paul Kouroupas of Global Crossing says his company wants to make sure agreements between service providers are honored on all networks. That way, a service promised by Global Crossing on its fiber optic network will be extended all the way to a customer’s door — even if another company carries the service that last mile.

The Verizon-Google proposal offers suggestions for a debate that is not likely to end soon. Daniel Brenner says the FCC needs clearer guidelines from Congress. And that’s the VOA Special English Economics Report, written by Mario Ritter  (Steve Ember).

*They Mean SLOW Down Everyone Else’s Internet Service!


Google-Verizon NN pact riddled with gaping loopholes
By Matthew Lasar
(Wikimedia Commons)

Even before Google and Verizon published their sweeping new Internet proposals for Congress, the net neutrality troops were out in force against the alliance.

"DON'T BE EVIL," proclaimed the Monday morning banner headline announcing the delivery of a petition signed by 300,000 people urging the search engine giant to back away from its alliance with Verizon.

"Google has always presented itself as a different kind of corporate entity," warned Justin Ruben, executive director of MoveOn.org. "The fact that they are involved in a deal that would kill Internet freedom directly contradicts this image. We hope that Google will reconsider before they are seen as just another giant corporation out to make a buck regardless of the consequence."
-
Shortly after the plan was unveiled, Public Knowledge damned it as a package that "does almost nothing to preserve an open Internet."

But we don't need these press releases to report the obvious. The Google/Verizon manifesto claims to preserve "transparency" on the 'Net, but the only really transparent thing about the plan is that it is packed with so many loopholes, a deep packet inspection powered P2P blocker the size of an M1 Abrams tank could roll through it without disturbing a telco executive's nap.

Meaningful harm...
Sure, the Google/Verizon press release proclaims that the proposal means that "for the first time, wireline broadband providers would not be able to discriminate against or prioritize lawful Internet content, applications or services in a way that causes harm to users or competition."

But the legislative document itself says the following (all italics are ours):

"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."

So who is going to decide what kind of harm is "meaningful"? Presumably the Federal Communications Commission, which gets to issue $2 million fines—except that under this plan the agency would enforce its components "through case-by-case adjudication, but would have no rule-making 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," the proposal continues, "and the FCC would be directed to give appropriate deference to decisions or advisory opinions of such groups."

In other words, some kind of organization dominated by Google and Verizon would decide what constitutes "meaningful harm," and the FCC would do what it tells them to do.

Rebut me.
And yes, the "new nondiscrimination principle" the companies advocate "includes a presumption against prioritization of Internet traffic—including paid prioritization."

Except when it doesn't.
"Prioritization of Internet traffic would be presumed inconsistent with the non-discrimination standard, but the presumption could be rebutted," the fine print says.

And the scheme's definition of "reasonable network practices" includes "any technically sound practice... to address traffic that is unwanted by or harmful to users, the provider's network, or the Internet..." and... "to prioritize general classes or types of Internet traffic, based on latency; or otherwise to manage the daily operation of its network."

We're sorry, but we're seeing prioritization arrangements all over this language—from Comcast's plain old P2P blocking, which was clearly "unwanted" by that provider's network, to Cox cable's traffic prioritization experiment, in which the company notified users that "less time-sensitive traffic, such as file uploads, peer-to-peer and Usenet newsgroups," would be delayed during periods of congestion.

And we haven't even gotten to this canyon-sized loophole in the Verizon/Google plan:

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 be allowed to publish an annual survey "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."

But what exactly will these "additional or differentiated" services that ISPs could charge content providers extra cash for be? IP Video? The latest, coolest live conferencing app?

And to whom would the Commission "report"? We don't know. But again, since the proposal forbids the FCC from making any rules, we fear that the complaint will go to Verizon and Google and the rest of the winners circle, who will decide what these exemptible services will be, then give the Commission its marching orders.

Transparency except...
Finally, the Verizon/Google plan has a mechanism for transparency. "Providers of broadband Internet access service would be required to disclose 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..."

...which is the sole  part of the whole shebang to which Verizon Wireless or any other wireless provider would have to adhere:

"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."

Decision time...
Let's not forget something here—wireless broadband is the future. The FCC's National Broadband Plan cites studies projecting that within the next five years, the quantity of mobile data traffic in North America will jump by a factor 20 to 40 times the amount measured in 2009.

Agree or disagree about net neutrality, but surely nondiscrimination rules that do not cover wireless broadband delivery systems will become meaningless as 4G sweeps the country and most mobiles become application-packed smart phone devices.

As we write this, our Inbox continues to fill with outrage over the plan. Some praise came from the Technology Policy Institute.

"In my view, new regulation is not needed to preserve the open Internet," declared its president Thomas Lenard. "Nevertheless, the Verizon-Google proposal has to be viewed as a serious and constructive effort to address the policy impasse that the FCC has created for itself."

We asked the FCC for comment on the proposal. "Decline to comment at this time," came the response.

But FCC Commissioner Michael Copps has posted the following on the agency's site.

"Some will claim this announcement moves the discussion forward," Copps warned. "That's one of its many problems. It is time to move a decision forward—a decision to reassert FCC authority over broadband telecommunications, to guarantee an open Internet now and forever, and to put the interests of consumers in front of the interests of giant corporations."