NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad

NNSquad Home Page

NNSquad Mailing List Information

 


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ NNSquad ] Re: FCC paths to Internet network management? (from IP)


At 11:41 PM 2/29/2008, Robb Topolski wrote:

Above is the link of an FCC filing from Google saying that the FCC should
prevent ISPs from most blocking or prioritizing, and that even though they
already pay a hefty fee for network access (page 24), that P2P applications
like Skype (page 36) are perfectly fine with them.

I've read Google's filing, and they do not at all say what you claim. In fact, Google states at the outset that


It should go without saying that Google is a confirmed believer in the free market. Unlike some who publicly tout the virtues of open markets while endeavoring behind the scenes to keep them closed, Google genuinely trusts that the marketplace will provide consumers, users, and providers alike with maximum benefits.

In short, Google prefers to let the marketplace sort things out.

What Google is concerned about is that providers such as SBC will try to charge Google more to reach its customers, even though it's already paying for its backbone bandwidth. It explicitly does NOT object to throttling of P2P by ISPs. It says:

Some forms of packet prioritization constitute reasonable business practices, because
they utilize objective criteria, and/or do not merely leverage unilateral control over last-mile connectivity. These practices include differentiating based on the type of applications and/or the quantity of bandwidth purchased by the consumer. Other forms amount to unreasonable discrimination; these include differentiation based on the ownership or affiliation of the content (who), or the source or destination of the content (the where).

As for Skype: If you actually read Google's comment at Page 36, you'll see that P2P is never mentioned and certainly never branded as "OK." What Google is concerned about, again, is blocking or hindrance of content or services by providers that offer similar ones.


--Brett Glass