PolicyBlog

A Technology and Telecommunications Policy Blog

 

Our Common Ground on the Open Internet

Tom Tauke posted in Policy PolicyBlog  on January 15, 2010, 08:32 AM EST

Posted by Tom Tauke, Verizon’s Executive Vice President of Public Affairs, Policy and Communications and Alan Davidson, Google’s Director of Americas’ Public Policy.

 

(Cross-posted at Google's Public Policy blog.)

 

Last night Google and Verizon filed a joint submission in response to the FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Preserving the Open Internet. This submission, which is in addition to the separate comments that each company filed last night expands on our October joint blog post. In that post, we endorsed a principled approach to finding common ground with respect to an open Internet. We expand on that common ground in our joint submission last night.

Reader Comments
All in all, it's not too bad a text. The problem, though - which is the same problem we'll be seeing with any writ - boils down to reasonable network management practices. What one person would call reasonable, the other person would cry foul over. * Is it reasonable to block outgoing SMTP from consumer broadband netblocks? * Is it reasonable to block P2P applications on mobile networks? If no, is it still unreasonable if the user is on an á la carte data plan and might incur pretty hefty charges, sometimes without knowing that it's even happening. Anti competitive, or protecting the consumer? A strong case could be made either way. (Sure, user choice would be ideal, but let's face it, the default will be what most people use) * If a network can't handle a certain class of applications, is it reasonable to thwart them in order to protect the user experience for everyone else? * Is it reasonable to provide special treatment for popular applications - i.e is it OK to give World of Warcraft traffic prioritity on a congested link, or is that anti-competitive since you don't give every online game priority? * Is it reasonable to relegate bulk data transfers to a lower priority on a congested link, no matter what protocol they use? In many cases you could make a good technological case, a good business case and a good moral case *either way*. Tricky. Disclaimer: I work for a traffic management vendor, but write this on my own time.
Kriss Andsten posted on 1/15/2010 1:21:26 PM
Why did you shove Bing! down our throats then on all Blackberry devices? Why did you limit devices with WiFi for so long? Why did you cripple GPS functionality for so long? "Net Neutrality" doesn't just apply to "the internet" in terms of connectivity and content delivered over HTTP. Net Neutrality is complete open access to anything available over those channels. You're making deals in the dark to keep your revenue high, don't patronize your customers. And before the trolls start getting upset over the use of GPS in this argument, I'm talking about using third-party software that accesses maps via the internet that aren't made by VZW (Google Maps, etc).
Ernie posted on 2/8/2010 11:12:09 AM
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this website until a moderator has approved them. The name you enter here will appear next to your comment. You must enter a valid email address to submit a comment.
Name *
Email *
Website
Comments *
Please Add 5 and 5 and type the answer here *
Submit

Subscribe to the Blog


 

Add to my MSN
Add to my Yahoo
Add to Google
Add to Technorati
Add to Bloglines
Follow us on Twitter

 

Categories

GO

 

Policy Blog TV | View All Video


 

Recent Contributors

Link Hoewing
"Washington CAN Get it When it Comes to the Internet - Here’s How" via Tweet this

John 'CZ' Czwartacki
"Connections, Food Fights and the Competitive Internet Ecosystem" via Tweet this

Kathy Brown
"Winter Doesn’t Chill Summer Jobs Push" via Tweet this

Tom Tauke
"Guest Column: Our Nation's Day of Reckoning is At Hand" via Tweet this

Kathy Grillo
"FCC Honors Accessibility Innovators" via Tweet this

All Contributors

 

GO

Tag Cloud