Speaking via his blog yesterday, senior Verizon spokesman David Fish said that the proposals crafted by Verizon and Google earlier this month are much stronger than anything the FCC could do through Title 2 reclassification of broadband services. Specifically he said that its "non-discrimination" and "presumption against any prioritization" provisions offered stronger protections to consumers.
Fish also commented on the Free Press response to a speech from Verizon public affairs chief Tom Tauke at the Technology Policy Institute's Aspen Forum, which the group said would "harm the Internet and its users, not help them."
"We believe a practical, principled and pro-consumer resolution of the network neutrality debate is within reach," Fish said. "But, to get there, some people need to cool the rhetoric and stick to the facts."
The "rhetoric" from Free Press called Tauke out for his defense of the proposals at a speech earlier in the week:
"Verizon can't hide the fact that, if enacted, this pact would mark the end of the open Internet era," said Free Press Research Director Derek Turner in a statement. "The Google-Verizon deal contains no protections for wireless access, which accounts for nearly one-third of all Internet connections, giving Verizon and other ISPs the green light to block or degrade content on their wireless networks."
Source: Wireless Week
Comments
Re: Verizon: Our Proposals Stronger Than FCC's
And the FCC's proposal does absolutely nothing to guarantee that the US government won't control traffic in the exact same way. As a matter of fact, it wholly opens the door for just such a thing.
---
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Re: Verizon: Our Proposals Stronger Than FCC's
I feel like a hen trapped in a hen house with two foxes that haven't yet finished fighting over who gets to eat me. It's not a pleasant experience.
my vanity is justified
Re: Verizon: Our Proposals Stronger Than FCC's
While I have little trust for either side in this fight, my policy is usually to side with the group that I can mess up easier if they screw me over. In this case, that is (surprisingly) the government.
I can vote out politicians that back abusing the government authority here. I can't vote out the businesses that abuse their control of the networks. They have a regional monopoly, and so are quite literally the only game in town.
That is why the argument that a free market will prevent abuses are fallacious. Effective market regulation by the "invisible hand" requires low barriers to entry, so competitors can arise when entrenched corporations go against market will. The telecom industry has a barrier to entry higher than just about any other industry beyond the power companies. No one can afford to build a parallel network from scratch just to compete.
No one beyond the government has the power to force the industry's hand. The consumers certainly don't. The only choice is a Hobson's choice. "Our way or the highway." With the nation increasingly dependent on connectivity for day-to-day life, "no service" is simply not a viable option for many people.