Google-Verizon Pact vs Net Neutrality
0
In case you guys haven't read the article, go here
So Google and Verizon have teamed up to battle Net Neutrality, which isn't a good thing. The banning of sites (Torrents, free downloads, etc) could all result if this was to go through. Virgin attempted the same thing (talked about in this thread) and to my knowledge it didn't go through. But this seems a bit bigger in comparison.
Josh Silver wrote about this doomsday-like event a few days ago. What's even worse is that the FCC and the Government isn't doing anything about it.
Of course this seems to only be happening in the USA for now, but it could set a dangerous and hated precedent for other countries to adopt it.
Fellow Fakku-ers, what do you think about this?
So Google and Verizon have teamed up to battle Net Neutrality, which isn't a good thing. The banning of sites (Torrents, free downloads, etc) could all result if this was to go through. Virgin attempted the same thing (talked about in this thread) and to my knowledge it didn't go through. But this seems a bit bigger in comparison.
Josh Silver wrote about this doomsday-like event a few days ago. What's even worse is that the FCC and the Government isn't doing anything about it.
Of course this seems to only be happening in the USA for now, but it could set a dangerous and hated precedent for other countries to adopt it.
Fellow Fakku-ers, what do you think about this?
0
animefreak_usa
Child of Samael
the internet is too broad to stop the torrents and dl's plus most of the stuff is on servers where they can't get them. so intil the one world government the neo nazi's been creaming(hard on then you know) about come about, it would make a dent on the pirated world
0
While this is a pretty doomsday-like event, I kind of laugh at the gutsy attempt that Google and Verizon are taking.
Like animefreak said, the internet is too big, endless, and (site-wise) private to stop downloads and torrents, and even if they could put a cap on 'em, there's just going to be another group of sites to take their place.
In addition to the whole deal where they'll try to take it over through the government, all they're asking for is a huge riot to go off (because the Internet is for the most part free and people who have it free want it to stay free) or a cyber attack from Anonymous (which I'm fairly sure may happen anytime soon).
animefreak_usa wrote...
the internet is too broad to stop the torrents and dl's plus most of the stuff is on servers where they can't get them. Like animefreak said, the internet is too big, endless, and (site-wise) private to stop downloads and torrents, and even if they could put a cap on 'em, there's just going to be another group of sites to take their place.
In addition to the whole deal where they'll try to take it over through the government, all they're asking for is a huge riot to go off (because the Internet is for the most part free and people who have it free want it to stay free) or a cyber attack from Anonymous (which I'm fairly sure may happen anytime soon).
0
I doubt Google's validity in that document. Google relies too heavily on their ad services and the use of their search engine to suddenly stop sending and receiving data from sites that are related to or affiliated with torrents and other pirating sites. It is all big talk to save face in the eyes of conservative media.
I don't have a particular opinion on Verizon, but I imagine it's very much the same.
Not to beat a dead horse, but like the others have mentioned the internet is too vast for even Google and partnerships to try and tackle piracy. Net Neutrality will have to actually be turned-over and control be given to the cable companies for there to be a realistic chance of stamping out piracy, and so far for every concession made against Net Neutrality, there have been an equal amount in favor. It's a battle that isn't likely to reach conclusion anytime soon.
On a tangent though, I have to say I'm starting to support the efforts against piracy now. I've never taken a particularly firm stand for or against piracy before, but as someone who has family who is directly related to these events and as someone who now has a steady income, I do agree that some measures need to be taken against piracy. The problem is where is that line drawn. Do we draw it at piracy geared towards expensive programs like those who pirate advanced computer software and games? Or do we draw the line at those who are subbing anime, manga, and hentai that holds no license outside of Japan? I'm not sure to be honest.
I don't have a particular opinion on Verizon, but I imagine it's very much the same.
Not to beat a dead horse, but like the others have mentioned the internet is too vast for even Google and partnerships to try and tackle piracy. Net Neutrality will have to actually be turned-over and control be given to the cable companies for there to be a realistic chance of stamping out piracy, and so far for every concession made against Net Neutrality, there have been an equal amount in favor. It's a battle that isn't likely to reach conclusion anytime soon.
On a tangent though, I have to say I'm starting to support the efforts against piracy now. I've never taken a particularly firm stand for or against piracy before, but as someone who has family who is directly related to these events and as someone who now has a steady income, I do agree that some measures need to be taken against piracy. The problem is where is that line drawn. Do we draw it at piracy geared towards expensive programs like those who pirate advanced computer software and games? Or do we draw the line at those who are subbing anime, manga, and hentai that holds no license outside of Japan? I'm not sure to be honest.
0
Scary stuff, and pretty poorly made rules. Knowing Verizon, I have little doubt that it's going to abuse its monopoly. The *real question* though, is how well their monopoly enforced priority internet is going to compete with the actual existing internet. Priority speed programs that move traffic to a separate network with higher bandwidth have existed for a long time. They've usually been a commercial failure.
If Verizon and Friends actually starts interfering with "Classic Internet" traffic too heavily, I'm pretty sure that the consumer uproar will scare some politicians normally in ISP pockets into denouncement, and some braver businesses may sue. They'd almost certainly get some EFF backing for their court cases, and then it'd be left to a court.
On the other hand, if "Classic Internet" traffic isn't interfered with heavily, it's likely that the "New Internet" won't see much adoption.
Most likely, with the coming scarcity of IPv4 addresses, Verizon and its friends will be trying to make money off of the migration to IPv6 by trying to associate it with their new network. We'll see how it goes.
If Verizon and Friends actually starts interfering with "Classic Internet" traffic too heavily, I'm pretty sure that the consumer uproar will scare some politicians normally in ISP pockets into denouncement, and some braver businesses may sue. They'd almost certainly get some EFF backing for their court cases, and then it'd be left to a court.
On the other hand, if "Classic Internet" traffic isn't interfered with heavily, it's likely that the "New Internet" won't see much adoption.
Most likely, with the coming scarcity of IPv4 addresses, Verizon and its friends will be trying to make money off of the migration to IPv6 by trying to associate it with their new network. We'll see how it goes.
0
Nothing of this will happen on a major scale. I also think we all should read the latest update on the topic before pointing fingers at anyone.
Sure, Verizon and Google might start to offer high-priority networks for sites, but as it has been stated that has been around for years and never really grown into anything bigger, and I doubt it will this time either.
As for the blocking of torrent sites and free-download sites and so on it will be a tedious thing to do, since as long as the content of the site doesn't involve any illegal content it's against the UN's declarations of human rights(freedom of speech to be precise) to close these sites. The ACTA-agreement tried to get the right do this in the first draft but was forced to change.
Now most torrent sites live of illegal content and would therefore be forced to remove the illegal content from the sites(Not necessarily close), and that kids is why you should look to become a member of a private tracker which are virtually untouchable from the peering, long fingers of the Man.
Sure, Verizon and Google might start to offer high-priority networks for sites, but as it has been stated that has been around for years and never really grown into anything bigger, and I doubt it will this time either.
As for the blocking of torrent sites and free-download sites and so on it will be a tedious thing to do, since as long as the content of the site doesn't involve any illegal content it's against the UN's declarations of human rights(freedom of speech to be precise) to close these sites. The ACTA-agreement tried to get the right do this in the first draft but was forced to change.
Now most torrent sites live of illegal content and would therefore be forced to remove the illegal content from the sites(Not necessarily close), and that kids is why you should look to become a member of a private tracker which are virtually untouchable from the peering, long fingers of the Man.
0
Chlor wrote...
Nothing of this will happen on a major scale. I also think we all should read the latest update on the topic before pointing fingers at anyone.Sure, Verizon and Google might start to offer high-priority networks for sites, but as it has been stated that has been around for years and never really grown into anything bigger, and I doubt it will this time either.
As for the blocking of torrent sites and free-download sites and so on it will be a tedious thing to do, since as long as the content of the site doesn't involve any illegal content it's against the UN's declarations of human rights(freedom of speech to be precise) to close these sites. The ACTA-agreement tried to get the right do this in the first draft but was forced to change.
Now most torrent sites live of illegal content and would therefore be forced to remove the illegal content from the sites(Not necessarily close), and that kids is why you should look to become a member of a private tracker which are virtually untouchable from the peering, long fingers of the Man.
While you are probably correct, I don't think that this is any less alarming. I hate to use the argument, but this is a pretty slippery slope and keeping the rules well defined I think is important. They may not be abused in the near future, but given time it's almost a given that someone will get a 'good' idea (for them) on how to control things on a large scale. It's just a bad precedent.
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Won't happen.
At least it won't stick.
They'll try this. And then they'll see a sudden drop in stock and customers.
At least it won't stick.
They'll try this. And then they'll see a sudden drop in stock and customers.
0
Khane wrote...
While you are probably correct, I don't think that this is any less alarming. I hate to use the argument, but this is a pretty slippery slope and keeping the rules well defined I think is important. They may not be abused in the near future, but given time it's almost a given that someone will get a 'good' idea (for them) on how to control things on a large scale. It's just a bad precedent.I see what you mean and definitely agrees with that having well defined rules are very important, if there are to many gray areas and loopholes it will be abused, but remember that even if Verizon and Google cooperates, neither of them "own" the net and can't make an major changes by themselves.
I have to point out that I'm no american and thus don't live in a country where Verizon offers any services and therefore has no authority to do anything to limit my internet-availability or speed, nor offer any of the beneficial services. Neither do I know much of what they have done in the past, but they seem to have quite the bad reputation for actually pulling stunts like this?
0
Chlor wrote...
I see what you mean and definitely agrees with that having well defined rules are very important, if there are to many gray areas and loopholes it will be abused, but remember that even if Verizon and Google cooperates, neither of them "own" the net and can't make an major changes by themselves.
I have to point out that I'm no american and thus don't live in a country where Verizon offers any services and therefore has no authority to do anything to limit my internet-availability or speed, nor offer any of the beneficial services. Neither do I know much of what they have done in the past, but they seem to have quite the bad reputation for actually pulling stunts like this?
Take another, closer look at the agreement. If it gets the force of law behind it, Google and Verizon *will* control the net effectively. Essentially it says that while the FCC(A government organization in the US) can enforce rules, it can't create new ones. That power is reserved for Google and Verizon.
Verizon doesn't really pull *stunts*, but almost every service they offer is heavily locked down and they really pull out every trick in the book to try and keep customers locked into their services. Their actual service *is* pretty good, but you give up a lot of freedom to get it. As an example, there's recently been a trend on their mobile phones of locking down customers ways to try and get free ringtones onto their phone. To get a free ringtone on a Verizon phone you pretty much have to get a copy of their product support tool and use a third party phone-filesystem program to get it onto the phone. They're just really anti competitive.
0
Khane wrote...
Take another, closer look at the agreement. If it gets the force of law behind it, Google and Verizon *will* control the net effectively. Essentially it says that while the FCC(A government organization in the US) can enforce rules, it can't create new ones. That power is reserved for Google and Verizon.
Well, Google and Verizon can per se not create any rules, since they still have no right to deem what's right and wrong/legal and illegal, all they can do is to grab as much as they can and keep trying to hold a leading positioning on the market.
And I can find nothing that states that the FCC's power will be lessened or restricted, from what I can read they are only there to monitor so that everyone plays fair, they even got the right to decide upon this on a case-to-case basis, which doesn't seem to be the case today.
Albeit this, I stumbled upon an interesting part of their filing to the FCC, urging them to stay clear of trying to enforce the rules on sites dealing with copyright-crimes(Such as torrenting) without proper mandate(Read second-to-last page, 8), so this kinda clears up the entire "Fuck, we're not gonna be able to torrent" part.
0
you know i cant help but think that if google or verizion makes ANY signifigant steps twards this goal, that the legion will come down with richios fury, as they did when on steave jobs when apple blocked 4chan on the iphone. i rember reading an article about it, the internet more or less kicked the crap out of him, got his personal info, phone CCN'S e-mail, everything on him. twas good.
so in the end what im trying to say is dont mess with the internet, for we do not forget, do not forgive and ... eh i dont know the rest of the quote so ill just leave this here.
so in the end what im trying to say is dont mess with the internet, for we do not forget, do not forgive and ... eh i dont know the rest of the quote so ill just leave this here.
0
Chlor wrote...
Well, Google and Verizon can per se not create any rules, since they still have no right to deem what's right and wrong/legal and illegal, all they can do is to grab as much as they can and keep trying to hold a leading positioning on the market.And I can find nothing that states that the FCC's power will be lessened or restricted, from what I can read they are only there to monitor so that everyone plays fair, they even got the right to decide upon this on a case-to-case basis, which doesn't seem to be the case today.
The ESRB doesn't have the legal right to mandate what games can be sold in the US either, but you don't see that stopping them. There might as well be no AO rating. Console makers won't license AO titles, and retail won't carry them. The worry is that the agreement would technically give Verizon and Google the power to legally block content of their choice on their network. At that point, they are creating the rules.
Chlor wrote...
Albeit this, I stumbled upon an interesting part of their filing to the FCC, urging them to stay clear of trying to enforce the rules on sites dealing with copyright-crimes(Such as torrenting) without proper mandate(Read second-to-last page, 8), so this kinda clears up the entire "Fuck, we're not gonna be able to torrent" part.Nice find. That certainly makes sense though, since neither Google nor Verizon would find value in tampering with torrent networks, as they actually increase the value of both of their services. I think that the torrent issue is a pretty small drop in the bucket though.
trekki859 wrote...
so in the end what im trying to say is dont mess with the internet, for we do not forget, do not forgive and ... eh i dont know the rest of the quote so ill just leave this here. Telecom organizations can't really get attacked by Anon in any meaningful way. Any infrastructure damage hurts anon so that's out, their executives probably already get regular death threats juding from their business practices and even a cursory look into Anon history would show most of those threats as empty. The most they could do is swamp their phone support with calls, which is just petty.
I'll throw in one of my sources here now. From a comment on ars-technica here:
http://arstechnica.com/telecom/guides/2010/08/googleverizon-we-do-loopholes-right.ars?comments=1#comments-bar
[size=10]
"Verizon just completed the sale of all their landline services in 14 states - FiOS and telephone - to Frontier, effective July 1, 2010
http://businessforums.verizon.net/t5/Fr ... d-p/191733
And -now- Verizon is suggesting that landline-based services be heavily regulated, but don't think it is prudent for wireless-based services to be regulated the same way.
Translation: I encourage you to regulate the access-model (landline) I just got out of, but don't want you to regulate the competing access-model (wireless) I'm now concentrating on.
Nice."[/h]
I haven't done much fact checking, but a cursory glance over the news confirms this to be true. Just what's Verizon's game here? Web content maybe? With the partnership with Google it makes sense, but then why sell off the landlines just as you push fake-neutrality?
0
Khane wrote...
The ESRB doesn't have the legal right to mandate what games can be sold in the US either, but you don't see that stopping them. There might as well be no AO rating. Console makers won't license AO titles, and retail won't carry them. The worry is that the agreement would technically give Verizon and Google the power to legally block content of their choice on their network. At that point, they are creating the rules.True, but remember that ESRB does in fact not regulate anything(Except advertisments "to consumers for whom the product is not rated as appropriate.", they offer their opinion(rating) and then it's up to the console makers to license the game or or not. It may be foul-play, but it's not illegal.
If Verizon or Google are to block certain content from the internet without any legal backing, they're still committing the crime of invalid censor which is an illegal act, what they can do is put a warning sign on stuff, but not block it.
0
I'm surprised to find so many up in arms over this. What Google and Verizon have published is simply a proposal; neither Google nor Verizon have the power to enact or introduce legislation.
FCC commissioner Michael Copps denounces the Google-Verizon pact:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-300754A1.pdf
Similarly related:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/06/business/la-fi-fcc-broadband-20100806
FCC commissioner Michael Copps denounces the Google-Verizon pact:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-300754A1.pdf
Similarly related:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/06/business/la-fi-fcc-broadband-20100806
0
Brittany
Director of Production
chiwa wrote...
I'm surprised to find so many up in arms over this.I think people are just getting sick of regulation over everything. Every time I hear a new bill trying to pass it's talking about some way to regulate something. I'm just tired of hearing about regulation instead of something more productive that the economy oh so desperately needs.
With what Google and Verizon were doing, people were jumping to all sorts of conclusions and they weren't even going to tolerate any idea of net neutrality.
I don't think it's oh so bad, I kind of get this mental image of the people protecting something that's theirs and not letting someone take it from them. I wish people would get up in arms over more issues to be honest.
0
I love how people (including myself) have been warning everyone about this for YEARS and no one fucking notices or mainstreams protest against it.
Seriously, this issue needs MUCH more press. -3-
Seriously, this issue needs MUCH more press. -3-
0
gizgal wrote...
I love how people (including myself) have been warning everyone about this for YEARS and no one fucking notices or mainstreams protest against it.Seriously, this issue needs MUCH more press. -3-
agreed!
0
gizgal wrote...
I love how people (including myself) have been warning everyone about this for YEARS and no one fucking notices or mainstreams protest against it.Seriously, this issue needs MUCH more press. -3-
It's not that big of a deal. Neither company has that power. They're still just companies. This won't go through. They have no legal backing behind this.
Two companies alone won't be able to control the internet. If Google stops listing pirating sites, then people will just jump to Yahoo. Google is not so stupid as to take such a huge risk. They're probably just putting their name out there on moral grounds, since they are the biggest search site company in the world. Verizon is just one ISP.
Net Neutrality isn't something that can be stopped that easily. It's not in any companies' power to do something like that. If they tried to overturn Net Neutrality, there would be lawsuits up the ass.