Google and Verizon just announced a horrifying proposal that could literally kill the Internet as we know it. Their plan? To create two separate, unequal sections of the Internet—one for big business that would be high-speed and exclusive, and then the inferior, slow "public Internet" that would be available to you and me.

This will effect the U.S.A. immediately and very quickly the Western countries as well......
Slow Internet for all of us...  

Do you have a source for that? I'm a bit sceptical about this..

New york times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/technology/10net.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/06/verizon-google-deal-what_n_672084.html

BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10920871

everywhere....!

 oh great.. lol the dutch news sites were a 30 minutes later then my search haha

 Scary stuff...posted to my facebook as well...

 its interesting how the newspapers and google both claim exactly the opposit when it comes to the consequences of these regulations...
now how am i supposed to make a decent opion? :-/

it's slow enough out here..they make it more slow..and i won't be able to get onto anything!!
it's still just under speculation, isn't it?
they can't do that..it will be stupid.
As it is..who owns the internet anyway?? Not google or verizon for sure, is it?

its not just speculation, its USA only as well.. i doubt verizon has anything to do with the speed at which internet connections are supplied in the netherlands.

So what..they'll decide that in the US.. businesses will get... say.. 10 mbps, whilst the gen public.. 564 kbps? (just rough figures). How can they decide that?
It's like saying they rule the internet...

 they'll probably just manipulate prices and policies. Its nothing that new from whats happening already. only now there would be rules about how to do that.

 Big Business owns the interweb folks...does the name Google, one of the **BIGGEST BUSINESSES in the world ring a bell? **

It does.. lol.. bobby.

but then..if it's like how rayraz sez it is.. we have that already here. i pay more.. to get a faster speed. It doesn't matter which service provider you use. Businesses are the only ones who can afford to have really high speeds. internet speed isn't a right out here..it's a luxury. . (i pay for 356 kbps..yes.. only that.. with 3 mbps over the weekend.. unlimited downloads.  Not many non business pple will be willing to pay that amount. )

And that too.. you may pay for 2 mbps, and get only 1. I think UK has that same 'untrue ' broadband speed.

the US isn't used to paying like that. they used to broadband fast speed without having to bother whether they paying for speed.

 Canada as well...we invented the freakin phone lines 50% of the net still comes down...there should be Hell to Pay here but I doubt the 'powers that be' will go against their BIG BUSINESS bosses

lol..bobby..i take it you use open office and microsoft office?  :-p

cheers and gnite..

Well, big businesses do own the internet, its been like that for a long time. But businesses too have to stick to the rules.

What we see now is that big businesses are getting arrogant enough to put on the table a ready-to-use set of rules. They are hoping the government will agree with their proposal and use their legislative power to turn this proposal into a law. Or at least they hope the powers that be will be inspired by their proposal and pass a similar law.

The newspapers are now being sceptical about how net neutrality wasn't a problem until google and verizon claimed it was, but ofcourse that is bullshit as well. Net neutrality ís a big issue, we dó need new laws, nationally and internationally, to tackle many topics within the broad scope of net neutrality, such as how to deal with illegal or dangerous content, privacy issues, worldwide freedom of information, freedom of speech, etc.

Thanx to the emergence of the internet as a worldwide open communications platform and the fact that it is now accessible to a significant portion of the world population these issues have become increasingly intertwined. For instance:
 - You cannot filter all internet content for potentially dangerous material (such as sites that promote terrorism) without breaking the privacy of everyone on the internet.
 - You cannot force the removal of illegal or dangerous material off the internet, at any point of the system, without compromising freedom of information or freedom of speech.

The thing which everyone is scared of: "prioritization of internet traffic" is one of the things the verizon-google legislative framework proposal explicitly opposes. The framework says the following about this:

Non-Discrimination Requirement: In providing broadband Internet access service, a provider would be prohibited from engaging in undue discrimination against any lawful Internet content, application, or service in a manner that causes meaningful harm to competition or to users. Prioritization of Internet traffic would be presumed inconsistent with the non-discriminationstandard, but the presumption could be rebutted.

What people are most likely scared about is the following:

Additional Online Services: A provider that offers a broadband Internet access service

complying with the above principles could offer any other additional or differentiated services.

Such other services would have to be distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband

Internet access service, but could make use of or access Internet content, applications or services and could include traffic prioritization. The FCC would publish an annual report on the effect of these additional services, and immediately report if it finds at any time that these services threaten the meaningful availability of broadband Internet access services or have been devised or promoted in a manner designed to evade these consumer protections.

This segment does state that services, other then "broadband internet access" cán receive traffic prioritization. But these services would have to be distinguishable different from "broadband internet connections" as a service. This isnt such a crazy suggestion. For instance, these days you can already receive tv, telephony and internet all through one cable connection package. It would make sense to allow a higher traffic bandwidth for the submission of HD television signals, while allowing a lower bandwidth for telephony.

Another thing many people trip over is the wireless broadband clause:

Wireless Broadband: Because of the unique technical and operational characteristics of

wireless networks, and the competitive and still-developing nature of wireless broadband

services, only the transparency principle would apply to wireless broadband at this time. The

U.S. Government Accountability Office would report to Congress annually on the continued

*development and robustness of wireless broadband Internet access services.

This clause says that wireless networks are free of all rules set in the framework other then the "transparency principle". This sounds scary but dont forget that the internet is accessed both wired and wireless.. so any actual content supplied on the internet itself would still be protected by the other principles.
I'm not quite sure which exclusively wireless services exist that could suffer from this clause.. does anyone have any ideas on this?

Finally, several newspapers claim the FCC would lose significant authority due to the following clause:

*Regulatory Authority: The FCC would have exclusive authority to oversee broadband Internet access service, but would not have any authority over Internet software applications, content or services. Regulatory authorities would not be permitted to regulate broadband Internet access service.

To some extend it is true that the FCC has only a very limited authority. But i think that is not the central issue here.

The FCC is the Federal Communications Commission, it deals with communication... And within the current proposal it maintains the exclusive authority to oversee broadband internet access service. 
This means the FCC can force any broadband internet access service provider to adjust their service to comply with the law, which is a very good thing.

What this clause does as well though is, it makes sure that access and content hosting and distribution would be separately controlled elements of the internet.
This means, no one can simply be denied access to the internet just because they supply content that isnt entirely legal. I think it is a very healthy thing to enforce this division as it will help ensure a safe balance between the various conflicting facets of net neutrality i mentioned before.

If they do something like this everyone should stop using internet shopping , see how  all the businesses like it when all their customers disappear.

Also is this not dependant on your isp? I pay for 10 meg broad band (which I’m glad to say I get most of the time)  I’m not going to carry on paying if everything slows to a crawl.

The problem is that the regulatory agency FCC has been told not to impose regulations on this portion of the Internet business dealings... This is part of the deregulations frenzy that goes back 20 years plus.. One that has led to our disastrous financial sector... and banking debacle,,   The head of the FCC is sitting on his hands on this one... Why??  no information is available ..  He has the power to ask for more authority but has done nothing as of yet..  Obama has not said a thing yet...

The FCC's job is to worry about the internet connection services not about what people can and cannot put online. It's in fact very safe to let separate authorities take care of content, and connection.
If you let one authority take care of both of those you get internet service providers that can forced to monitor every users internet traffic for illegal activities and take them offline if they do something illegal. Webhosts could be forced to take content offline just because the government doesnt like it. etc. etc.
However if content and connection are separately guarded, it will be harder to make a profound negative impact on net neutrality, as neither party is in control of all the factors involved.

Also there is nothing in this framework that facilitates slowing the internet down to a crawl.

By the way, according to a dutch news site, the proposal has already been denied.

Quote - The FCC's job is to worry about the internet connection services not about what people can and cannot put online. It's in fact very safe to let separate authorities take care of content, and connection.
If you let one authority take care of both of those you get internet service providers that can forced to monitor every users internet traffic for illegal activities and take them offline if they do something illegal. Webhosts could be forced to take content offline just because the government doesnt like it. etc. etc.
However if content and connection are separately guarded, it will be harder to make a profound negative impact on net neutrality, as neither party is in control of all the factors involved.

Also there is nothing in this framework that facilitates slowing the internet down to a crawl.

By the way, according to a dutch news site, the proposal has already been denied.

Rayraz :  It is not the content we are worried about...  It is who may have access and how much of it..    He who owns the roads controls the places the roads go to....  These mega corporations are set to control access to the internet,,,

How can you have read that the proposition by Google and Verizon was denied..!?   When it is the FCC who has that job and they are not opposing anything,,,,,  They are not for it,,  but silence speaks loudly....  The authority is the FCC,, supposedly by rule of law...  
Right now Google and Verizon are behaving as the authorities.... and look what might be happening... We can lose our neutral Internet...

Lack of honest and appropriate regulations is what's driving these companies to do anything they want....   Are you ready to pay more for your access??? 

Correction....  congress has put a Halt on the deal  for now....  but that's not permanent,,,,
we need laws to keep these things from happening again....

You were right Rayraz... about the holding the deal....  sorry...  credit were credit is due....

Content isnt the problem.. the problem is access to content.. no organization can keep you from setting up a webhosting server and hosting malicious, illegal or dangerous web content. So content will always be available.. but content is nothing if others arent able to access it... right now there are many many organizations that want to control the content on the net, from record labels to entire governments. By giving the FCC exclusive authority over the service that supplies us with access to this content, and by making them explicitly unable to have authority over the content itself, there is no longer a link between the content and the access to it.
This means the FCC cannot force removal of content. And any parties that might be able to force removal of content cannot force access providers to block access to the content. I really dont see how that is a bad thing.

The FCC has not been silent, it has in fact been rejecting the proposal:
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db0809/DOC-300754A1.pdf
The FCC wants to make decisions rather then simply discuss issues. Within the Verizon-Google proposal the FCC does not have the legislative power to make decisions, but only to maintain decisions made.

If it wouldnt have been rejected though, you wont get to pay more, thats what the whole non-discrimination requirement is about...

 ah cross-post :) no problem.
When i saw such huge differences in the statements of the press and the statements made by google i just resorted to actually reading the proposal itself, and that cleared up a LOT of the contradictions. Cant trust the media these days i guess...

 I dont think we need laws to keep these thigns from happening... fresh perspectives are always a good thing and since businesses still dont have any legislative power their proposals are relatively harmless... when all is said and done the powers that be are the ones that make the rules. Not google or verizon or any other large corporation.
  Also,  any civilian organization could equally easily device a proposal like verizon and google have done, and suggest it to the authorities. 

*"I dont think we need laws to keep these thigns from happening... fresh perspectives are always a good thing and since businesses still dont have any legislative power their proposals are relatively harmless... when all is said and done the powers that be are the ones that make the rules. Not google or verizon or any other large corporation.  "

I guess our housing and banking debacles, that brought us to a depression,  are really not any harm....  etc... etc...

If you don't see that the powers that be..are the corporations... and special interest groups that fight for corporate interest by flooding the gates of our congressmen with money and other incentives and turning them against our interest...   then there is no point in arguing this any further... 
You trust and respect the status of corporate honesty and behavior...  okay...

I politely retreat from this debate,,  between two friends... ;)

The plan “creates an Internet for the haves and an Internet for the have-nots,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior vice president and policy director at the Media Access Project, an advocacy group in Washington and a member, along with Google, of the Open Internet Coalition. “It may make some services unaffordable for consumers and access to those services unavailable to new start-ups.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/technology/10net.html?_r=2&th&emc=th

YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQlhutNNZG8&feature=player_embedded#!

Tiered Broadband:

“The idea behind the tiered broadband services claim was that the two companies would advocate for public access to the Internet, but that the content would be available at different speeds and different subscription rates…

The FCC is chartered to oversee "communications services," such as the public switched telephone network. However, the Internet was reclassified by the 1996 Telecommunications Act as an information service. As such, the court ruled that it remains outside the FCC's purview…

the public advocacy organization warns that ISPs could ignore net neutrality principles by creating a "two-tier Internet" with fast lanes and slow lanes. And that appears to be what Google and Verizon are proposing.”

http://gcn.com/Articles/2010/08/10/ECG-Google-and-Verizon-Push-Tiered-Broadband-Services.aspx?Page=1

@ Quest
well informed and well said....

Look up (Google) the people involved with the George Soros funded, Orwellian-named group "Free Speech" (they are for anything but free speech) that is pushing for this infringement on internet free speech and ultimate government control of internet access and content.  These people praise the type of censorship that exists in Communist China, Cuba, Vemezuela, etc.  They know that if the free-market influence on the growth of the internet is replaced by government-sponsored initiatives, that the government will be able to exercise complete control over who gets to say what on the internet.  Wake up people.  Do your homework.  You are being duped.

With the virulent stuff against WikiLeaks, they lying lunacy about piracy (hey it sucks, but it isn't terrorism and it doesn't cost the billiosn they say it does), and now this..

are folk beginning to grasp that "They" are trying to shut down the last gasp of true freedom we've had in a century of stiffling control, and the evil that will ensue, hm?

No free thought for you! Your genes belong to us! Copyrights are eternal!  If you can't pay for your medical bills at our ludicrous rates then die, peon!

The jackboot, the gas chamber, the auto-da-fe and the gulag are understandable, easy to see evils, but the worst one we have EVER created is the Corporation.
Addicts often can't see they are in a cage or that their dealer is evil.

Go read up on "The Trials of the Industrialists" at Nuremeberg.
that evil never went awya, just waited until folk went back to sleep.