<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana">I am a proponent of transparency. I have just read
the best answer to my arguments, <b>indicating that transparency is no
longer enough</b>:<br>
<br>
</font>
<ul>
<li>New "wireless services" (aka the entire future of the Internet)?
No equivalent nondiscrimination rules for that, but we'll "create
enforceable transparency rules." <b>That way, as Americans lose access
to the free and open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away.</b></li>
</ul>
From:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-green/breaking-google-goes-evil_b_676021.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-green/breaking-google-goes-evil_b_676021.html</a><br>
<br>
This discussion is particularly important right now. Could one of our
Google people step in to join us here?<br>
<br>
<br>
On 8/10/2010 6:18 AM, parminder wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4C612E8B.9010607@itforchange.net" type="cite"><br>
<br>
On Tuesday 10 August 2010 09:59 AM, McTim wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">All,
<br>
<br>
Here is the "deal", a proposed policy framework.
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/35599242/Verizon-Google-Legislative-Framework-Proposal">http://www.scribd.com/doc/35599242/Verizon-Google-Legislative-Framework-Proposal</a>
<br>
<br>
It may be the same as the link Ian sent, but connectivity is dodgy this
morning.
<br>
<br>
Lots of negative reaction on huffpost (a site I can reach albeit
slowly):
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-green/breaking-google-goes-evil_b_676021.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-green/breaking-google-goes-evil_b_676021.html</a>
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-silver/google-verizon-deal-the-e_b_671617.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-silver/google-verizon-deal-the-e_b_671617.html</a>
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-aaron/google-verizon-pact-it-ge_b_676194.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-aaron/google-verizon-pact-it-ge_b_676194.html</a>
<br>
<br>
All of it misses the point that the telcos have never really been NN
<br>
practitioners, it's just not part of who they are.
<br>
</blockquote>
McTim, Sorry, but I think it is you who are missing the point here. It
is not about what already happened surreptitiously and now may be more
open, but what is your views on what is happening, and its threat or
not to the Internet you want to advocate for.
<br>
<br>
Incidentally, if i remember rightly, you have said on this list that
you support 'network neutrality' (NN). So the point is what is the NN
you support, how important you think it is and what is it that you are
ready to do to push for it.
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">My question is "why now?" What does Google
have to gain at this point
<br>
by saying " under this proposal we would not now apply most of the
<br>
wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency
<br>
requirement". Is this the best they could get?
<br>
</blockquote>
I dont understand why you are so bothered about what google did vis a
vis its interests and why, rather than how it affects public interest.
And whether 'this is the best 'we', the public, can get'.
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">@Tracy, any country can offer regulations
that says "a bit is a bit is
<br>
a bit, thou shall not treat them differently". However, since most
<br>
regulators are cozy with the telcos who have never treated bits
<br>
equally, this is unlikely to happen. Maybe in Scandinavia tho, one
<br>
never knows!
<br>
</blockquote>
Again, dismissively mentioning 'what is unlikely to happen' may not the
best way to go forward for an advocacy group at this kind of a
juncture, which has taken upon itself to promote progressive Internet
policies and 'strive to ensure an information society which better
enables equal opportunity and freedom for all' (from the charter).
Also, why should be rather more sanguine that our efforts can dismantle
the authoritarian regimes of the world but are unlikely to have any
effect on continued corporatist domination of the Internet and the
world.
<br>
<br>
Parminder
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
<br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>