no offense, but I believe that the BBC should do their research:
"Fifth, we want the broadband infrastructure to be a platform for
innovation. Therefore, our proposal would allow broadband providers to
offer additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the
Internet access and video services (such as Verizon's FIOS TV) offered
today. This means that broadband providers can work with other players
to develop new services. It is too soon to predict how these new
services will develop, but examples might include health care
monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services, or new
entertainment and gaming options. Our proposal also includes
safeguards to ensure that such online services must be distinguishable
from traditional broadband Internet access services and are not
designed to circumvent the rules. The FCC would also monitor the
development of these services to make sure they don’t interfere with
the continued development of Internet access services. "
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-for-open-internet.html
Of course, they could be lying, but why?
I think when google says:
"Second, we agree that in addition to these existing principles there
should be a new, enforceable prohibition against discriminatory
practices. This means that for the first time, wireline broadband
providers would not be able to discriminate against or prioritize
lawful Internet content, applications or services in a way that causes
harm to users or competition."
they mean it.
And, as it stands now, corporations, who are the ones providing
broadband services in the first place (the US Gov hasn't regulated it
since DARPANET was the ONLY internet) completely have the option to
discriminate and/or prefer content at whim. No law against it on the
books currently, not that I know of anyway.
So, I'm wondering, how a proposal to the FCC *ensuring* non-
discriminatory practices, is a problem.
These specialized services that would create an "internet of the noble
class" (can you say T3 line?) they speak of here:
"Fifth, we want the broadband infrastructure to be a platform for
innovation. Therefore, our proposal would allow broadband providers to
offer additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the
Internet access and video services (such as Verizon's FIOS TV) offered
today. This means that broadband providers can work with other players
to develop new services. It is too soon to predict how these new
services will develop, but examples might include health care
monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services, or new
entertainment and gaming options. Our proposal also includes
safeguards to ensure that such online services must be distinguishable
from traditional broadband Internet access services and are not
designed to circumvent the rules. The FCC would also monitor the
development of these services to make sure they don’t interfere with
the continued development of Internet access services."
Sounds like TiVo on steroids. I myself prefer Hulu for my vapid
content consumption, and it works just fine on the current internet.
I can see the fear though, the next generation of internet should
allow easy streaming of HD quality video, which would be great. But
with corporations using their money to create another internet service
just for this kind of content, it may never reach the "open net".
On Aug 14, 2010, at 7:24 AM, glerm soares wrote:
PS3: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10961776
-*-*--**---***-----*****--------********
Harvard & Roy Arts Council
list options:
http://grauwald.com/mailman/listinfo/hrac_grauwald.com
-*-*--**---***-----*****--------********
-*-*--**---***-----*****
-*-*--**---***
-*-*--**
-*-*
-*
