Reactions To Google, Verizon Proposal For 'Open Internet'

Following reports that the two companies were finalizing a deal that could upend net neutrality and bring about "the end of the Internet as we know it," Google and Verizon announced a seven point policy proposal they say is aimed at preserving an "open internet."

"It is imperative that we find ways to protect the future openness of the Internet and encourage the rapid deployment of broadband," Verizon and Google said in a blog post titled "A Joint Policy Proposal for an Open Internet."

But what does the Google-Verizon proposal really mean for the future of information online? Will it kill net neutrality--or save it? We've compiled early reactions to the joint framework. What do you think? Read their plan here, then weigh in below.

1 of 16

ATT Mobility CEO Ralph de la Vega

1 of 17

First Slide

Previous Slide

@

Ralph de la Vega, president and CEO of AT&T Mobility, had positive things to say about the proposal, Yahoo writes:

On Wednesday, company executive Ralph de la Vega told analysts "it's a positive sign that shows that those two companies can agree on something as different as Net neutrality." He called it a right step forward.

The Brain As Art

North Korea's Craziest Threats

5 Smaller Alternatives to Netflix

Google Dictionary

Digital Diplomacy Forum

The 7 Surface Reviews You Should Read

Ralph de la Vega, president and CEO of AT&T Mobility, had positive things to say about the proposal, Yahoo writes:

On Wednesday, company executive Ralph de la Vega told analysts "it's a positive sign that shows that those two companies can agree on something as different as Net neutrality." He called it a right step forward.

comments(438)

Total comments: 438 | Post a Comment

1 of 17

This Reaction

Rank #2  |  Average: 4

Don't Think So Absolutely!

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6
• 
  7
• 
  8
• 
  9
• 
  10

Reactions

loading...

Reactions

UserName

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Top User Slides

← Prev|Next →

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Users who voted on this slide

← Prev|Next →

loading...

Comments

[Apathy Man]

11:48 PM on 08/18/2010

The teaparty is is a creation of the big corporations. The bring them out anytime they need to portray the government as the boogie man. You'll notice that there are still no teaparty protests to get our money back from the back door bailouts that the banks got. But god help you if you mention healthcare.

[justaconcernedcitizen]

03:37 PM on 08/17/2010

Im confused
who is going to be in charge of my free speech?

[dlewisa]

10:35 AM on 08/14/2010

So . . . the tea baggers are fighting for their freedom, their right, to pay more for something they're essentially getting for free now (plus of course your ISP provider fee).

It is so awesome that you can manage to get the poor to give away even more of their money than they already do just by telling them that a freedom or a right is in danger!

[INQUISITION11]

08:47 AM on 08/14/2010

This only makes sense if the rumours of Google being a CIA front are true, what better way to squeeze out govenment critics and blogs on the only real free speech vehicle people have ever had.

[justaconcernedcitizen]

03:40 PM on 08/17/2010

a better way is like they do here on HP
you dont even know there doing it LOL

[J5on]

09:15 PM on 08/13/2010

Rubert Murdoch of Fox News has the "Tea Baggers" out trying to persuade public opinion against "Net Neutrality". If they get the mindless on-board with voting against their best interest it could be a problem. The entire internet is on the line here, so we will need a solution, because losing the internet is not an option.

[equianimi]

05:10 PM on 08/13/2010

Boycott google, use duckduckgo.com or another search engine. I like duckduckgo because they are committed to privacy and don't store your information like google does.

[sacbeme]

03:14 PM on 08/13/2010

Google finally did it. They sold their soul to the devil.
I remember when Apple did it. 'Tis a sad day.

[Cathy Coudriet]

04:07 PM on 08/13/2010

'tis a sad day....

[rgilley]

11:54 AM on 08/13/2010

The censors and usurpers of free speech are approaching the Net , organize against them or the internet's freedoms will go down with other freedoms that conservatives and corporations have taken from us over the past 30 years.

[cabinetmaniac]

11:23 AM on 08/12/2010

Josh Silver from FreePress.org on Democracy Now!

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/8/6/verizon_google_enter_reported_deal_for

AMY GOODMAN: And Google’s slogan, "Do no evil"?

JOSH SILVER: I think it’s over. The era of Google doing no evil just ended at the moment of this deal.

☮

[DreamWeaver2nd]

04:16 PM on 08/13/2010

Thanks for the link, cabinetmaniac. This is one of the most important issues of our time. What's going on does not bode well ...

[TruEngineHearing]

10:07 AM on 08/12/2010

Some say 'calm down', but I say it's time to go ballistic! Sometimes only a doomsday theory will wake people up. Tons of farm boys knew no reason to join the army at the beginning of WWII - until the government showed them the German propaganda films, and THAT got them motivated.

So listen to what Google's Schmidt says, and THAT should get people off their butts and into the right mood to get it done - and the way to win is not to lose... just sayin...

[DreamWeaver2nd]

04:22 PM on 08/13/2010

I agree -- time to go ballistic! Net neutrality is the "free speech" and "free press" that's been left to us after corporate takeover of most of other media.

[DurantImboden]

05:44 PM on 08/11/2010

There's a way to make wireless net neutrality achievable without government micromanagement of traffic. Simply ensure wireless competition in three steps:

- Outlaw service contracts (in other words, require that wireless data service--and wireless phone service, for that matter--be month-to-month or prepaid)

- Outlaw bundling of phones with service (i.e., require that all phones be unlocked and sold at market prices)

- Get rid of competing proprietary standards that lock phone owners into relationships with specific carriers.

Implementation might take a while, but in the long run, we'd have real competition and real freedom of choice.

[EndangeredJackalope]

09:47 PM on 08/11/2010

I don't fully understand. How does this make net neutrality achievable.

Wouldn't some carriers simply offer varying grades of service -- super high speed delivery of content from partner companies at a low price (content provider pays telecom/ISP)... VS totally free internet of today, but at a high price (because the content providers don't pay the ISP.)

[cordyc]

03:41 PM on 08/13/2010

This is mandatory. It has been far to long to not have competition in the wireless market.

We will still needs some more net neutrality rules and jurisdiction for the FCC in addition to opening competition.

[AEM49]

05:17 PM on 08/11/2010

Since the Google/Verizon agreement is for wireless communication then the FCC probably can regulate this, wireless is radio bandwidth and that is in the parlance of the FCC.

[cordyc]

03:43 PM on 08/13/2010

Absolutely. Wireless is a limited resource and it is the role of government to regulate for the benefit of all Americans.

[DRaymond]

03:40 PM on 08/11/2010

You might be wondering what's Google's dog in this hunt. Why would they be so eager to abandon net neutrality, the rules that allowed them to exist in the first place?

Two words. cloud computing, or more specificaly Google Apps. Cloud computing is VERY bandwidth sensitive. If Google can get the next generation of Google Apps positioned as a 'differentiated service' with priority throughput then anybody else still having to compete for bandwidth with everything else will be at an insurmountable disadvantage.

So with the Google/Verizon pact Google gets to own cloud computing, which allows them to leverage Chrome into the next dominant desktop OS, Android into the next mobile OS and Google Apps into the next office productivity suite.

Bottom line Google owns everything and nobody has a chance of stopping it because they can't get the priority bandwidth to have their stuff run as well.

Evil? Absolutely.

[EndangeredJackalope]

09:49 PM on 08/11/2010

thank you.

[cordyc]

03:50 PM on 08/13/2010

Yep, that is were they are going with this. I hadn't seen it in that light but you are correct.

Back to the bad of days of AOL censorship, if you have been on the net that long. Compuserv also worked like this. They decided what site you could connect to. Same with Prodigy.

Now in fairness to the above companies. All of these services evolved out of a marketplace where the application provider had to put their servers/hosts on a specific network. Compuserv even had a business model that charged you a fee to go to a certain host if it was setup that way. For example, you might pay 50 to get a weather report, or $25 per month to get stock quotes.

[DRaymond]

05:01 PM on 08/13/2010

Actually this is way worse than the old AOL/Compuserve walled garden. It is about using control of the pipeline to own the next generation of computing both in terms of applications, Desktop OS, and Mobile OS. Microsoft pales by comparison to the potential monopoly here.

[JerryRice]

01:29 PM on 08/11/2010

As much as we are all wary of trusting the government to act in our interests, and for good reason, I would much rather have the government (and its specialized departments like the FCC) have control over something like the internet than corporate giants, any day.

[ValdaDeDieu]

12:12 PM on 08/11/2010

By the way, this is the sort of thing the FCC was designed for. To thwart attempts like these. At no time should any corporation feel capable of "redesigning" the Internet. The Internet belongs to us all. And the FCC works for you and me.

[Laserbeam]

02:06 PM on 08/11/2010

I agree completely, but I heard on the television news that the FCC won't lay claim to the internet. Have you heard anything about that?

[ValdaDeDieu]

01:28 PM on 08/13/2010

Haven't heard anything about that. "Lay claim?" What does that mean? Preventing the corporations from dividing up the Internet is NOT "laying claim," it's protecting all our interests -- which is what the FCC is there for in the first place.

Seems the news you heard is from a source against net neutrality, because by this sentence they're implying FCC intervention is some sort of government control -- which is anything but.