aqualung's small pieces

A paper trail of betrayal: Google's net neutrality collapse

The whole approach just seemed so at odds with Google's past fiery statements on the issue. Maybe we misread the search engine giant's previous statements, we worried. Until this month, wasn't Google one of net neutrality's biggest advocates?

So this morning we re-read three Google documents again—filings with the FCC going back to 2007, shortly after Google's Eric Schmidt first asked the public to "take action to protect Internet freedom."

Comparing "Google Then" with "Google Now," the differences seem pretty stark. Google Then raised strong objections to three major points in the Google/Verizon statement that Google Now endorses.

via arstechnica.com

And Ars Technica avoids any judgement on the pros and cons of the Google/Verizon proposal, but neatly skewers Google's apparent about-face on some of its key aspects ... it would be funny if it wasn't so upsetting.

A Review of Verizon and Google's Net Neutrality Proposal | Electronic Frontier Foundation

Neutrality should be the rule for all services, and a distinction between wired and wireless not only defies reason, it also abandons the portion of the Internet that is currently most lacking in openness and neutrality. Users are increasingly demanding the ability to do many, if not all, of the same things in a wireless environment as they do in a wired one. Regardless of what regulation may look like or whether there is any regulation at all, there shouldn’t be a distinction between the neutrality available on wired services and that available on wireless services.

via www.eff.org

The Electronic Frontier Foundation's Cindy Cohn does a reasonable job of parsing the Google/Verizon net neutrality proposal, finding some good ideas, some interesting ideas, and some really BAD ideas - and the idea that wireless internet access should be exempt from any neutrality provisions is about the worst.

Oh - and you think this doesn't concern us here in Australia? How long before someone here gets the same ideas, or before it gets "exported" to us via trade agreements with the USA (as has happened already with copyright and software patent provisions)? This is not an argument we can ignore - the outcomes will affect us eventually.

Ausvotes 2010 - how I'm voting and why

At the risk of being slammed for "so what" blogging :) - I Tweeted earlier my voting intentions (as part of a Twitter stream around the Coalition's broadband policy - check out the #ausvotes and #nbn hashtags from today), but figured that 140 characters wasn't going to cut it for an explanation.

Lower House: despite their recent vacillations over acting on the "greatest moral challenge of our time", Labor is still the most likely "party able to form government" to take some constructive action over climate change; and they have the NBN. For me (let me repeat that: for ME) these are the two key differentiators between the two major parties - bearing in mind that I am somewhat Left-leaning at the best of times.

Senate: Greens - because they are *likely* to support climate change action from the ALP, they support the NBN, and they oppose the internet filter and data retention proposals.

In an election characterised by a race to the bottom, it comes down to those four things for me. On the Internet ISP-level filter, and the data-retention proposals from the ALP, I would like to remind them that they are NOT a single-issue party - a vote for the ALP only means that ON BALANCE I prefer their policy mix, not every facet of it. Senator Conroy, don't come back after the election and assume that I have given you a mandate to censor me and peruse my Web wanderings.