nanog mailing list archives
Fwd: [IP] [warning: layer 8/9] "Strange bedfellows, " aka a joint statement from Verizon Wireless and Google
From: tvest () eyeconomics com
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:04:03 -0400
Interesting, curious... but meaningful?To my mind Google's language seems to be focused on wireline issues, which I guess are probably quite a bit easier for Verizon Wireless to accommodate. Conversely, VW's emphasis on continuing self-regulation of wireless access would seem to be of secondary importance, at best, to Google.
Does this mean that a future of combat over "my (TCP) ports" is somewhat less likely? Does this mean that Google won't be offering me FTTH within the next 2-3 years?
Inquiring minds take note! TV Begin forwarded message:
From: David Farber <dave () farber net> Date: October 22, 2009 7:27:48 AM EDT To: "ip" <ip () v2 listbox com>Subject: [IP] Finding Common Ground on an Open Internet - a joint statement from Lowell McAdam, CEO Verizon Wireless and Eric Schmidt, CEO Google.Reply-To: dave () farber net A Technology and Telecommunications Policy Blog Thursday, October 22, 2009 Finding Common Ground on an Open InternetThe following is a joint statement from Lowell McAdam, CEO Verizon Wireless and Eric Schmidt, CEO Google.Verizon and Google might seem unlikely bedfellows in the current debatearound network neutrality, or an open Internet. And while it's true wedo disagree quite strongly about certain aspects of government policy inthis area--such as whether mobile networks should even be part of the discussion--there are many issues on which we agree. For starters weboth think it's essential that the Internet remains an unrestricted andopen platform--where people can access any content (so long as it's legal), as well as the services and applications of their choice.There are two key factors driving innovation on the web today. First is the programming language of the Internet, which was designed over fortyyears ago by engineers who wanted the freedom to communicate from any computer, anywhere in the world. It enables Macs to talk to PCs, Blackberry Storms to iPhones, the newest computers to the oldest hardware on the planet across any kind of network--cable, DSL, fiber, mobile, WiFi or even dial up.Second, private investment is dramatically increasing broadband capacity and the intelligence of networks, creating the infrastructure to supportever more sophisticated applications.As a result, however or wherever you access the Internet the people youwant to connect with can receive your message. There is no centralauthority that can step in and prevent you from talking to someone else,or that imposes rules prescribing what services should be available.Transformative is an over-used word, especially in the tech sector. Butthe Internet has genuinely changed the world. Consumers of all stripescan decide which services they want to use and the companies they trust to provide them. In addition, if you're an entrepreneur with a big idea, you can launch your service online and instantly connect to an audienceof billions. You don't need advance permission to use the network. At the same time, network providers are free to develop new applications, either on their own or in collaboration with others. This kind of "innovation without permission" has changed the way we do business forever, fueling unprecedented collaboration, creativity and opportunity. And because America has been at the forefront of most ofthese changes, we have disproportionately benefited in terms of economicgrowth and job creation.So, in conjunction with the Federal Communications Commission's national plan to bring broadband to all Americans, we understand its decision to start a debate about how best to protect and promote the openness of theInternet. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has promised a thoughtful,transparent decision-making process, and we look forward to taking partin the analysis and discussion that is to follow. We believe this kindof process can work, because as the two of us have debated these issueswe have found a number of basic concepts to agree on. First, it's obvious that users should continue to have the final sayabout their web experience, from the networks and software they use, tothe hardware they plug in to the Internet and the services they access online. The Internet revolution has been people powered from the very beginning, and should remain so. The minute that anyone, whether from government or the private sector, starts to control how people use the Internet, it is the beginning of the end of the Net as we know it. Second, advanced and open networks are essential to the futuredevelopment of the Web. Policies that continue to provide incentives forinvestment and innovation are a vital part of the debate we are now beginning.Third, the FCC's existing wireline broadband principles make clear thatusers are in charge of all aspects of their Internet experience--from access to apps and content. So we think it makes sense for theCommission to establish that these existing principles are enforceable,and implement them on a case-by-case basis. Fourth, we're in wild agreement that in this rapidly changing Internet ecosystem, flexibility in government policy is key. Policymakers sometimes fall prey to the temptation to write overly detailed rules,attempting to predict every possible scenario and address every possibleconcern. This can have unintended consequences.Fifth, broadband network providers should have the flexibility to managetheir networks to deal with issues like traffic congestion, spam, "malware" and denial of service attacks, as well as other threats that may emerge in the future--so long as they do it reasonably, consistent with their customers' preferences, and don't unreasonably discriminatein ways that either harm users or are anti-competitive. They should alsobe free to offer managed network services, such as IP television. Finally, transparency is a must. Chairman Genachowski has proposedadding this principle to the FCC's guidelines, and we both support thisstep. All providers of broadband access, services and applications should provide their customers with clear information about their offerings. Doubtless, there will be disagreements along the way. While Verizon supports openness across its networks, it believes that there is no evidence of a problem today -- especially for wireless -- and no basis for new rules and that regulation in the US could have a detrimental effect globally. While Google supports light touch regulation, it believes that safeguards are needed to combat the incentives for carriers to pick winners and losers online. Both of our businesses rely on each other. So we believe it's appropriate to discuss how we ensure that consumers can get the information, products, and services they want online, encourage investment in advanced networks and ensure the openness of the web around the world. We're ready to engage in this important policy discussion.
Current thread:
- Fwd: [IP] [warning: layer 8/9] "Strange bedfellows, " aka a joint statement from Verizon Wireless and Google tvest (Oct 22)