August 2010 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Re: [nexa] Notes from a Disappointed Fanboy

by a.dicorinto＠uniroma1.it

Mi auguro di ritrovarmi a Vilnius con una nutrita pattuglia di democratici (della rete) per dire quanto è sbagliato l'approccio di Google, sorry (Googizon). Chi viene?

Aug. 17, 2010

Re: [nexa] NYT Debate: "Who Gets Priority on the Web?"

by Stefano Quintarelli

prima di questo evento la FCC stava per riclassificare internet da servizio informativo a telecomunciazioni, dandole la facoltà (non l'obbligo) di regolamentare molti aspetti. adesso sono proprio curioso di vedere che succederà. forse questo patto ha l'obiettivo di affondare quel processo in atto che avrebbe conseguenze limitative per entrambi i soggetti. in questo senso soni d'accordo con il post, non hanno fiducia in washington (sai mai, potrebbero imporre regole limitative...) ciao, s. -- www.reeplay.it www.eximia.it Il giorno 16/ago/2010, alle ore 23.26, Marco Pancini <pancini(a)google.com> ha scritto: > A proposito di Zittrain, questo e' il post in cui approfondisce l'argomento Google/Verizon: > http://futureoftheinternet.org/the-googleverizon-framework > > marco > > sent with my nexus one > > Il giorno 16/ago/2010 19.44, "J.C. DE MARTIN" <demartin(a)polito.it> ha scritto: > > Seconda rapida segnalazione ferragostana: > > http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/8/9/who-gets-priority-on-the-web > > Tra gli altri, notate le posizioni di Lessig, Wu e Zittrain. > > > > Ottima anche la sintesi di Anna Masera: > > http://lastampa.it/_web/CMSTP/tmplrubriche/giornalisti/hrubrica.asp?ID_blog… > > > > juan carlos > > > > _______________________________________________ > > nexa mailing list > > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

Aug. 17, 2010

Verizon google

by Mariella Berra

vedi http://blog.ilmanifesto.it/chipsandsalsa/2010/08/15/google-cestina-la-net-n…

Aug. 17, 2010

Re: [nexa] NYT Debate: "Who Gets Priority on the Web?"

by Marco Pancini

A proposito di Zittrain, questo e' il post in cui approfondisce l'argomento Google/Verizon: http://futureoftheinternet.org/the-googleverizon-framework marco sent with my nexus one Il giorno 16/ago/2010 19.44, "J.C. DE MARTIN" <demartin(a)polito.it> ha scritto: > Seconda rapida segnalazione ferragostana: > http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/8/9/who-gets-priority-on-the-web > Tra gli altri, notate le posizioni di Lessig, Wu e Zittrain. > > Ottima anche la sintesi di Anna Masera: > http://lastampa.it/_web/CMSTP/tmplrubriche/giornalisti/hrubrica.asp?ID_blog… > > juan carlos > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

Aug. 16, 2010

NYT Debate: "Who Gets Priority on the Web?"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Seconda rapida segnalazione ferragostana: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/8/9/who-gets-priority-on-the-web Tra gli altri, notate le posizioni di Lessig, Wu e Zittrain. Ottima anche la sintesi di Anna Masera: http://lastampa.it/_web/CMSTP/tmplrubriche/giornalisti/hrubrica.asp?ID_blog… juan carlos

Aug. 16, 2010

Rodota': "Se il mondo perde il senso del bene comune"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Un saluto e una rapida segnalazione ferragostana. juan carlos Se il mondo perde il senso del bene comune Repubblica --- 10 agosto 2010 pagina 122 sezione: PRIMA PAGINA POCHI giorni fa l' Assemblea generale delle Nazioni Unite ha approvato una risoluzione che riconosce l' accesso all' acqua come diritto fondamentale di ogni persona. L' anno scorso il Parlamento europeo ha parlato di un diritto fondamentale di accesso ad Internet. Apparentemente lontane, queste due importanti prese di posizione di grandi istituzioni internazionali si muovono sullo stesso terreno, quello dei beni comuni, attribuiscono il rango di diritti fondamentali all' accesso di tutti a beni essenziali per la sopravvivenza (l' acqua) e per garantire eguaglianza e libero sviluppo della personalità (la conoscenza). Nell' ottobre del 1847, quattro mesi prima della pubblicazione del Manifesto dei comunisti, Alexis de Tocqueville gettava uno sguardo presago sul futuro, e scriveva: «Ben presto la lotta politica si svolgerà tra coloro che possiedono e coloro che non possiedono: il grande campo di battaglia sarà la proprietà». Quella lottaè continuata ininterrotta e il campo di battaglia, che per Tocqueville era sostanzialmente quello della proprietà terriera, si è progressivamente dilatato. Oggi sono appunto i beni comuni - dall' acqua all' aria, alla conoscenza, ai patrimoni culturali e ambientali - al centro di un conflitto davvero planetario, di cui ci parlano le cronache, confermandone la natura direttamente politica, e che non si lascia racchiudere nello schema tradizionale del rapporto tra proprietà pubblica e proprietà privata. [...] Continua qui: http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubblica/archivio/repubblica/2010/08/10/se-i…

Aug. 16, 2010

Fw: [Creis_Terminal] urgent Researcher position in namur belgium for etica and egais european projects

by Mariella Berra

Da mariella, aggiungo un riassunto interessante di un vecchio artcolo. Buon agosto ----- Original Message ----- From: Philippe Goujon To: creis_terminal(a)lecreis.org Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 11:42 AM Subject: [Creis_Terminal] urgent Researcher position in namur belgium for etica and egais european projects Thanks to diffuse this message to people that might be interested *laboratory for ethical governance of information technology **engages Under the direction of Prof. Philippe Goujon * ( http://www.fundp.ac.be/universite/personnes/page_view/01005672/cv.html ) **_A researcher (16 months 100% - M/F) ** beginning of october 2010 end 28/02/2012 (total 16 month) *Research project * Research lies within the scope of two European projects. Those projects investigate ethical governance in EU research projects with the goal of providing a framework for improved governance mechanisms that will address potential ethical issues arising from new and emerging technologies. Studying current governance arrangements in actual ICT projects (and in particular in Ambient Intelligence project) will help to produce a better understanding of the efficiency and limits of current ethics governance. This will be applied to the relevant ethical issues identified which will lead to a recommendation of successful governance arrangements that will address ethical issues in emerging ICTs before or as they arise. The recommendations for individual issues will be used to develop general policy recommendations. The researcher's work will include: Review of ICT ethics governance - Research on ICT ethics governance in current European projects - Evaluation of effectiveness of current governance arrangements - Application of suitable governance arrangements to most relevant issues identified - Evaluation of viability of suggested governance arrangements *Qualifications* _/* high level master(orPh.d. ) from philosophy or social sciences (with a good knowledge concerning ethics) with a strong interest in the problems involved in social integration, ethics and the governorship of new technologies. *Necessary qualities * · available, open-minded; · Scientific rigor and motivation for research; · Efficiency in the work and capacity to understand theoretical developments; · Perfect knowledge of power point; · Perfect spoken and written English. - the ability to work as part of a team - the ability to produce written material of publishable standard *Environment of research * - Facultés universitaires Notre-Dame de la Paix (http://www.fundp.ac.be/en/) - Computer sciences department (http://www.fundp.ac.be/en/inf ) - an international network of 15 European labs expert in the field * Procedure of recruitment * CV Interview (tel)and skype video Test CV and accompanying letter of motivation to be sent *before 10 september(but the sooner is better), 2010 _by mail, post or fax_* to Professor Philippe Goujon rue Grandgagnage, 21 5000 - Namur , Belgium E-mail : pgo(a)info.fundp.ac.be Phone (Cellular) : +32 497 03 50 12 Fax : +32 81 72 49 67 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Creis_terminal mailing list Creis_terminal(a)lecreis.org https://listes.globenet.org/listinfo/creis_terminal

Aug. 16, 2010

Re: [nexa] R: Spazio di libertà sicurezza e giustizia

by Andrea Glorioso

Margherita, mi unisco ai ringraziamenti, materiale molto interessante. Marco, in attesa di una conferma da parte di chi gestisce il server di NEXA, sospetto che negli ultimi giorni ci siano stati dei "problemi tecnici". Anche la "mia" mailing list "copywhat", che NEXA molto gentilmente ospita, e` rimasta bloccata negli ultimi due-tre giorni. Ciao, Andrea 2010/8/13 Marco Ricolfi <marco.ricolfi(a)studiotosetto.it>: > Grazie margherita per entrambe le notizie; hai idea di perché la tua e-mail > risulti spedita il 9 agosto ma arrivata solo oggi? M. > > > > Da: nexa-bounces(a)server-nexa.polito.it > [mailto:nexa-bounces@server-nexa.polito.it] Per conto di Margherita > Salvadori > Inviato: lunedì 9 agosto 2010 14.12 > A: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > Oggetto: [nexa] Spazio di libertà sicurezza e giustizia > > > > Segnalo che sulla G.U.U.E. 27.7.2010, n. L 195/5 è stato pubblicato > l'Accordo tra l’Unione europea e gli Stati Uniti d’America sul trattamento e > il trasferimento di dati di messaggistica finanziaria dall’Unione europea > agli Stati Uniti ai fini del programma di controllo delle transazioni > finanziarie dei terroristi > > http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOIndex.do?year=2010&serie=L&textfield2=195&Submit… > > > > > > Segnalo, inoltre, un interessante intervento a firma Leda Bargiotti su > "Unione Europea e segreto di stato: un quadro normativo ancora in > piena evoluzione" postato su un blog che vuole contribuire a rendere più > trasparenti le istituzioni > > http://slsg.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/unione-europea-e-segreto-di-stato-un-q… > > > > ms > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > >

Aug. 13, 2010

R: Spazio di libertà sicurezza e giustizia

by Marco Ricolfi

Grazie margherita per entrambe le notizie; hai idea di perché la tua e-mail risulti spedita il 9 agosto ma arrivata solo oggi? M. Da: nexa-bounces(a)server-nexa.polito.it [mailto:nexa-bounces@server-nexa.polito.it] Per conto di Margherita Salvadori Inviato: lunedì 9 agosto 2010 14.12 A: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it Oggetto: [nexa] Spazio di libertà sicurezza e giustizia Segnalo che sulla G.U.U.E. 27.7.2010, n. L 195/5 è stato pubblicato l'Accordo tra lUnione europea e gli Stati Uniti dAmerica sul trattamento e il trasferimento di dati di messaggistica finanziaria dallUnione europea agli Stati Uniti ai fini del programma di controllo delle transazioni finanziarie dei terroristi <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOIndex.do?year=2010&serie=L&textfield2=195&Submit =Cercare&_submit=Cercare&ihmlang=it> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOIndex.do?year=2010&serie=L&textfield2=195&Submit= Cercare&_submit=Cercare&ihmlang=it Segnalo, inoltre, un interessante intervento a firma Leda Bargiotti su "Unione Europea e segreto di stato: un quadro normativo ancora in piena evoluzione" postato su un blog che vuole contribuire a rendere più trasparenti le istituzioni <http://slsg.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/unione-europea-e-segreto-di-stato-un-q uadro-normativo-ancora-in-piena-evoluzione/> http://slsg.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/unione-europea-e-segreto-di-stato-un-qu adro-normativo-ancora-in-piena-evoluzione/ ms

Aug. 13, 2010

Notes from a Disappointed Fanboy

by Stefano Quintarelli

David Weinberger:Notes from a Disappointed Fanboy: ... But, this compromise goes too far. For one thing, it enshrines a major shift in Google’s definition of Net neutrality that CEO Eric Schmidt casually announced last week: Google is fine with access providers deciding which services should get preferential treatment, so long as they don’t differentiate within a service. So, Verizon could decide to slow down your online video game so that other subscribers could watch high def video. But Verizon would have to treat all high def video traffic equally. That’s better than Verizon deciding that its own video library would work better than Comcast’s, but it means that those who give us access to the Internet get to decide what it’s really for. Nope. It’s our Internet. We get to decide, and then to invent new uses. That is the source of the Internet’s value. Letting the access providers decide which services and content get preference is especially worrisome since they’re also in the business of selling us those services and content. They’d get to shape the Internet to reflect their business model. ... So, Verizon could cut a deal with a company to deliver, say, a jukebox service over Verizon’s broadband connection, and charge more for delivering it faster than a competitor’s service, so long as that service is “distinguishable in scope and purpose from Internet access service.” In a posting on its Public Policy Blog (disclosure: I am friends with the author, Rick Whitt), Google notes that providers “already offer these types of services today,” and says that the compromise in fact hedges the services in. I’d be more disposed to believe that if I knew what “distinguishable in scope and purpose from Internet access service” meant. Couldn’t anything delivered as a “differentiated service” also be delivered as an Internet service? Further, the Googizon proposal would allow these differentiated services to “make use of or access Internet content, appplications or services…” Again, I’m not sure what this means, except that it sounds like a company could pay Verizon to deliver content from the Internet faster than that content would travel over the Internet connection Verizon gives you. This would (if I’m understanding it) provide a strong incentive to big companies to move their service out of the Internet, and pony up the “fast lane” fees that Net neutrality is explicitly designed to prevent. ... My growing doubts now have me looking for language that wiggles — the “it depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is” moments. For example: The proposal says providers “would be prohibited from preventing users” from “sending and receiving lawful content…” So, could my access provider block me from visiting Wikileaks? How about file-sharing sites like ThePirateBay.org? Could they without penalty block my fair use of copyrighted materials? In fact, since we already have a legal system for prosecuting those who do illegal things, why are we putting the access providers in charge of this? The proposal would prevent broadband access providers from blocking any usage in a way that causes “meaningful harm to competition or to users.” Since the providers’ justification for discriminating among bits — that is, for violating Net neutrality — has always been that they’re doing it for the benefit of their users, this is a hole that could not be papered over even with the world’s entire available supply of good will. ... ------ Rick Ellrod faceva una osservazione interessante che ho riproposto sul mio blog: Reasonable network management includes any technically sound practice: . . . to address traffic that is unwanted by or harmful to users, the provider’s network, or the Internet; . . . If this complex exception parses out to (either unwanted by or harmful) to (either users, the provider's network, or the Internet) then it would include 'traffic unwanted by the provider's network'. Interessante notare la premessa dell'articolo: Net Neutrality is a complicated issue. The recent Google/Verizon policy proposal has raised new questions about the open internet - the idea that all online content gets treated equally. To explore this issue, we’re featuring a series of guest blog posts on our site. Today, the thoughts of David Weinberger, Senior Researcher at Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society E in particolare come si faccia confusione tra "open" e neutralità. Sarà perchè ho appena rivisto il film Sesso e potere... -- www.reeplay.it www.eximia.it

Aug. 13, 2010

Re: [nexa] Google-Verizon: una proposta congiunta per una rete aperta

by Stefano Quintarelli

grazie, lo avevo già bloggato. però mi sembra di legge più volte che un mito non è un mito quando è realtà. attendo speranzoso di leggere le tue risposte alle mie osservazioni (liberissimo di non farlo, ovviamente). ciao, s, -- www.reeplay.it www.eximia.it Il giorno 13/ago/2010, alle ore 16.12, Marco Pancini <pancini(a)google.com> ha scritto: > Ciao Stefano, > Nel post pubblicato ieri sera sul nostro blog, ci sono buona parte delle risposte alle tue domande. > Ti copio ed incollo il contenuto in originale in modo che tu possa valutare se effettivamente sia così... altrimenti siamo come sempre a disposizione di tutti per chiarire. > Buon weekend. > marco > Facts about our network neutrality policy proposal > Thursday, August 12, 2010 at 1:46 PM ET > Posted by Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel > > Over the past few days there’s been a lot of discussion surrounding our announcement of a policy proposal on network neutrality we put together with Verizon. On balance, we believe this proposal represents real progress on what has become a very contentious issue, and we think it could help move the network neutrality debate forward constructively. > > We don’t expect everyone to agree with every aspect of our proposal, but there has been a number of inaccuracies about it, and we do want to separate fact from fiction. > > MYTH: Google has “sold out” on network neutrality. > > FACT: Google has been the leading corporate voice on the issue of network neutrality over the past five years. No other company is working as tirelessly for an open Internet. > > But given political realities, this particular issue has been intractable in Washington for several years now. At this time there are no enforceable protections – at the Federal Communications Commission or anywhere else – against even the worst forms of carrier discrimination against Internet traffic. > > With that in mind, we decided to partner with a major broadband provider on the best policy solution we could devise together. We’re not saying this solution is perfect, but we believe that a proposal that locks in key enforceable protections for consumers is preferable to no protection at all. > > MYTH: This proposal represents a step backwards for the open Internet. > > FACT: If adopted, this proposal would for the first time give the FCC the ability to preserve the open Internet through enforceable rules on broadband providers. At the same time, the FCC would be prohibited from imposing regulations on the Internet itself. > > Here are some of the tangible benefits in our joint legislative proposal: > Newly enforceable FCC standards > Prohibitions against blocking or degrading wireline Internet traffic > Prohibition against discriminating against wireline Internet traffic in ways that harm users or competition > Presumption against all forms of prioritizing wireline Internet traffic > Full transparency across wireline and wireless broadband platforms > Clear FCC authority to adjudicate user complaints, and impose injunctions and fines against bad actors > Verizon has agreed to voluntarily abide by these same requirements going forward – another first for a major communications provider. We hope this action will convince other broadband companies to follow suit. > > MYTH: This proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless. > > FACT: It’s true that Google previously has advocated for certain openness safeguards to be applied in a similar fashion to what would be applied to wireline services. However, in the spirit of compromise, we have agreed to a proposal that allows this market to remain free from regulation for now, while Congress keeps a watchful eye. > > Why? First, the wireless market is more competitive than the wireline market, given that consumers typically have more than just two providers to choose from. Second, because wireless networks employ airwaves, rather than wires, and share constrained capacity among many users, these carriers need to manage their networks more actively. Third, network and device openness is now beginning to take off as a significant business model in this space. > > In our proposal, we agreed that the best first step is for wireless providers to be fully transparent with users about how network traffic is managed to avoid congestion, or prioritized for certain applications and content. Our proposal also asks the Federal government to monitor and report regularly on the state of the wireless broadband market. Importantly, Congress would always have the ability to step in and impose new safeguards on wireless broadband providers to protect consumers’ interests. > > It’s also important to keep in mind that the future of wireless broadband increasingly will be found in the advanced, 4th generation (4G) networks now being constructed. Verizon will begin rolling out its 4G network this fall under openness license conditions that Googlehelped persuade the FCC to adopt. Clearwire is already providing 4G service in some markets, operating under a unique wholesale/openness business model. So consumers across the country are beginning to experience open Internet wireless platforms, which we hope will be enhanced and encouraged by our transparency proposal. > > MYTH: This proposal will allow broadband providers to “cannibalize” the public Internet. > > FACT: Another aspect of the joint proposal would allow broadband providers to offer certain specialized services to customers, services which are not part of the Internet. So, for example, broadband providers could offer a special gaming channel, or a more secure banking service, or a home health monitoring capability – so long as such offerings are separate and apart from the public Internet. Some broadband providers already offer these types of services today. The chief challenge is to let consumers benefit from these non-Internet services, without allowing them to impede on the Internet itself. > > We have a number of key protections in the proposal to protect the public Internet: > First, the broadband provider must fully comply with the consumer protection and nondiscrimination standards governing its Internet access service before it could pursue any of these other online service opportunities. > Second, these services must be “distinguishable in purpose and scope” from Internet access, so that they cannot over time supplant the best effort Internet. > Third, the FCC retains its full capacity to monitor these various service offerings, and to intervene where necessary to ensure that robust, unfettered broadband capacity is allocated to Internet access. > So we believe there would be more than adequate tools in place to help guard against the “cannibalization” of the public Internet. > > MYTH: Google is working with Verizon on this because of Android. > > FACT: This is a policy proposal – not a business deal. Of course, Google has a close business relationship with Verizon, but ultimately this proposal has nothing to do with Android. Folks certainly should not be surprised by the announcement of this proposal, given our prior public policy work with Verizon on network neutrality, going back to our October 2009 blog post, our January 2010 joint FCC filing, and our April 2010 op-ed. > > MYTH: Two corporations are legislating the future of the Internet. > > FACT: Our two companies are proposing a legislative framework to the Congress for its consideration. We hope all stakeholders will weigh in and help shape the framework to move us all forward. We’re not so presumptuous to think that any two businesses could – or should – decide the future of this issue. We’re simply trying to offer a proposal to help resolve a debate which has largely stagnated after five years. > > It’s up to Congress, the FCC, other policymakers – and the American public – to take it from here. Whether you favor our proposal or not, we urge you to take your views directly to yourSenators and Representatives in Washington. > > We hope this helps address some of the inaccuracies that have appeared about our proposal. We’ll provide updates as the situation continues to develop. > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Stefano Quintarelli <stefano(a)quintarelli.it> wrote: > marco, > > c'era una consultazione pubblica cui Google/Verizon hanno risposto o e' > stata una inziativa estemporanea delle due societa' ? > > quale e' il tuo parere sulla neutralita' della rete ? e' un valore da > preservare o no ? (non parlo di apertura, ma di neutralita) e poi, la > posizione di Google al riguardo e' cambiata o no ? > > poi, nel dettaglio, > > negli obiettivi, al punto 1 in italiano dice "gli utenti devono essere > liberi di scegliere.." mentre l'originale in inglese dice "gli utenti > dovrebbero scegliere.." > > nelle proposte: > punto 2 in italiano: > i fornitori di servizi a banda larga fissa non potrebbero discriminare o > dare precedenza a determinati contenuti, applicazioni o servizi online a > danno dell’utenza o della concorrenza. > > punto 2 in inglese: > 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. > > la versione in inglese non esclude che cio' si possa fare, ma che si > possa fare in un modo che causa danni agli utenti o ai concorrenti. > (ovvero non e' sufficiente dimostrare che avviene discriminazione, ma > che l'effetto di tale prioritizzazione implichi un danno a utenti/competitor > > La frase > "Quindi, oltre a non bloccare o devalorizzare contenuti e applicazioni > online, i fornitori di servizi a banda larga fissa non potrebbero > favorire uno specifico traffico online rispetto ad un altro." > viene smentita nel successivo punto 5, quando si dice > "Pertanto, la nostra proposta permetterebbe ai fornitori di servizi a > banda larga di offrire servizi online addizionali e differenziati, in > aggiunta ai servizi, attualmente offerti, di accesso Internet e ai > servizi video" > > ovvero non tutti i bit sono uguali, alcuni sono piu' uguali deli altri. > > > Domanda: il fatto che > " > la FCC avrebbe il potere di attuare tali principi di apertura in una > logica caso-per-caso attraverso un procedimento azionabile a richiesta > di parte. La FCC potrebbe agire rapidamente per porre termine a > comportamenti in violazione dei suddetti principi e avrebbe il potere di > imporre delle multe fino a un massimo di 2 milioni di dollari per coloro > i quali non si attenessero alle sue decisioni. > " > Marco, secondo te non depotenzia l'azione di ufficio per cause antitrust > e le relative sanzioni ? 2MUSD sono bruscolini, no ? > rispetto a un ipotetica prsona che guadagna 30.000 euro l'anno, la > sanzione MASSIMA sarebbe pari a ben 2,3 euro per Google e 2,2 euro per > Verizon. > > poi, nel merito del resto, ho scritto abbastanza sul mio blog, incluso > quella proposta (che mi sembra scellerata) di sbinare la banda a secondo > dei servizi (quinto principio) > > ciao, s. > > Marco Pancini wrote: > > Cari Tutti, > > Vi segnalo questo post del nostro blog ufficiale che parla dell'accordo > > di policy che Google ha concluso negli Stati Uniti con Verizon sul tema > > dell'open internet: > > http://googleitalia.blogspot.com/2010/08/una-proposta-congiunta-per-una-ret… > > > > Condivido in pieno le parole con le quali David John Collins, il nostro > > responsabile comunicazione e public affair per l'Europa, ha introdotto > > questo tema: > > > > /In Google siamo convinti che sia il potere della natura dinamica ed > > aperta della rete a guidare lâ€™innovazione, gli investimenti e la > > crescita economica. > > Conservare questa apertura richiede il nostro coinvolgimento nel > > dibattito proattivo con gli altri attori dellâ€™ecosistema e con le > > AutoritÃ , per assicurare che le regole di funzionamento di Internet > > offrano agli utenti la miglior esperienza online possibile. > > Ieri abbiamo annunciato una serie di proposte comuni con Verizon, > > operatore di telecomunicazioni, per raggiungere questo obiettivo negli > > Stati Uniti. > > Queste proposte mettono in luce il nostro impegno per difendere la > > natura aperta della rete e permettere la continuazione degli > > investimenti nelle infrastrutture a banda larga. Queste indicazioni sono > > specifiche per lo sviluppo di Internet negli Stati Uniti, ma restiamo > > impegnati a proseguire il dialogo su questi temi anche in Europa/ > > > > Resto a vostra disposizione per maggiori informazioni. > > > > A presto. > > marco > > > > -- > > Marco Pancini > > European Senior Policy Counsel > > Google Italy > > Corso Europa, 2 > > 20122 Milano, Italia > > Tel. +39 02 36618524 > > Cell. +39.348.9946222 > > pancini(a)google.com <mailto:pancini@google.com> > > Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/googlepolicyit > > > > This email may be confidential or privileged. If you received this > > communication by mistake, please don't forward it to anyone else, please > > erase all copies and attachments, and please let me know that it went to > > the wrong person. Thanks. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > nexa mailing list > > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > -- > blog.quintarelli.it > www.eximia.it > www.reeplay.it > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > > > -- > Marco Pancini > European Senior Policy Counsel > Google Italy > Corso Europa, 2 > 20122 Milano, Italia > Tel. +39 02 36618524 > Cell. +39.348.9946222 > pancini(a)google.com > Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/googlepolicyit > > This email may be confidential or privileged. If you received this communication by mistake, please don't forward it to anyone else, please erase all copies and attachments, and please let me know that it went to the wrong person. Thanks.

Aug. 13, 2010

Re: [nexa] Google-Verizon: una proposta congiunta per una rete aperta

by Marco Pancini

Ciao Stefano, Nel post pubblicato ieri sera sul nostro blog, ci sono buona parte delle risposte alle tue domande. Ti copio ed incollo il contenuto in originale in modo che tu possa valutare se effettivamente sia così... altrimenti siamo come sempre a disposizione di tutti per chiarire. Buon weekend. marco Facts about our network neutrality policy proposal<http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/facts-about-our-network-neut…> Thursday, August 12, 2010 at 1:46 PM ETPosted by Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel Over the past few days there’s been a lot of discussion surrounding our announcement<http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-for-op…> of a policy proposal on network neutrality we put together with Verizon. On balance, we believe this proposal represents real progress on what has become a very contentious issue, and we think it could help move the network neutrality debate forward constructively. We don’t expect everyone to agree with every aspect of our proposal, but there has been a number of inaccuracies about it, and we do want to separate fact from fiction. *MYTH: Google has “sold out” on network neutrality.* FACT: Google has been the leading corporate voice<http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/search/label/Net%20Neutrality> on the issue of network neutrality over the past five years. No other company is working as tirelessly for an open Internet. But given political realities, this particular issue has been intractable in Washington for several years now. At this time there are no enforceable protections – at the Federal Communications Commission or anywhere else – against even the worst forms of carrier discrimination against Internet traffic. With that in mind, we decided to partner with a major broadband provider on the best policy solution we could devise together. We’re not saying this solution is perfect, but we believe that a proposal that locks in key enforceable protections for consumers is preferable to no protection at all. *MYTH: This proposal represents a step backwards for the open Internet.* FACT: If adopted, this proposal would *for the first time* give the FCC the ability to preserve the open Internet through *enforceable rules* on broadband providers. At the same time, the FCC would be prohibited from imposing regulations on the Internet itself. Here are some of the tangible benefits in our joint legislative proposal: - Newly enforceable FCC standards - Prohibitions against blocking or degrading wireline Internet traffic - Prohibition against discriminating against wireline Internet traffic in ways that harm users or competition - Presumption against all forms of prioritizing wireline Internet traffic - Full transparency across wireline and wireless broadband platforms - Clear FCC authority to adjudicate user complaints, and impose injunctions and fines against bad actors Verizon has agreed to voluntarily abide by these same requirements going forward – another first for a major communications provider. We hope this action will convince other broadband companies to follow suit. *MYTH: This proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless.* FACT: It’s true that Google previously has advocated for certain openness safeguards to be applied in a similar fashion to what would be applied to wireline services. However, in the spirit of compromise, we have agreed to a proposal that allows this market to remain free from regulation for now, while Congress keeps a watchful eye. Why? First, the wireless market is more competitive than the wireline market, given that consumers typically have more than just two providers to choose from. Second, because wireless networks employ airwaves, rather than wires, and share constrained capacity among many users, these carriers need to manage their networks more actively. Third, network and device openness is now beginning to take off as a significant business model in this space. In our proposal, we agreed that the best first step is for wireless providers to be fully transparent with users about how network traffic is managed to avoid congestion, or prioritized for certain applications and content. Our proposal also asks the Federal government to monitor and report regularly on the state of the wireless broadband market. Importantly, Congress would always have the ability to step in and impose new safeguards on wireless broadband providers to protect consumers’ interests. It’s also important to keep in mind that the future of wireless broadband increasingly will be found in the advanced, 4th generation (4G) networks now being constructed. Verizon will begin rolling out its 4G network this fall under openness license conditions that Googlehelped persuade<http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2007/07/signs-of-real-progress-at-fc…> the FCC to adopt. Clearwire is already providing 4G service in some markets, operating under a unique wholesale/openness business model<http://newsroom.clearwire.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=214419&p=irol-corpoverview>. So consumers across the country are beginning to experience open Internet wireless platforms, which we hope will be enhanced and encouraged by our transparency proposal. *MYTH: This proposal will allow broadband providers to “cannibalize” the public Internet.* FACT: Another aspect of the joint proposal would allow broadband providers to offer certain specialized services to customers, services which are not part of the Internet. So, for example, broadband providers could offer a special gaming channel, or a more secure banking service, or a home health monitoring capability – so long as such offerings are separate and apart from the public Internet. Some broadband providers already offer these types of services today. The chief challenge is to let consumers benefit from these non-Internet services, without allowing them to impede on the Internet itself. We have a number of key protections in the proposal to protect the public Internet: - First, the broadband provider must fully comply with the consumer protection and nondiscrimination standards governing its Internet access service *before* it could pursue any of these other online service opportunities. - Second, these services must be “*distinguishable in purpose and scope*” from Internet access, so that they cannot over time supplant the best effort Internet. - Third, the FCC retains its *full capacity to monitor* these various service offerings, and to intervene where necessary to ensure that robust, unfettered broadband capacity is allocated to Internet access. So we believe there would be more than adequate tools in place to help guard against the “cannibalization” of the public Internet. *MYTH: Google is working with Verizon on this because of Android.* FACT: This is a policy proposal – not a business deal. Of course, Google has a close business relationship with Verizon, but ultimately this proposal has nothing to do with Android. Folks certainly should not be surprised by the announcement of this proposal, given our prior public policy work with Verizon on network neutrality, going back to our October 2009 blog post<http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/10/finding-common-ground-on-ope…>, our January 2010 joint FCC filing<http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/01/hey-fcc-keep-internet-open-a…>, and our April 2010 op-ed<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704100604575145663137195890.h…> . *MYTH: Two corporations are legislating the future of the Internet.* FACT: Our two companies are proposing a legislative framework to the Congress for its consideration. We hope all stakeholders will weigh in and help shape the framework to move us all forward. We’re not so presumptuous to think that any two businesses could – or should – decide the future of this issue. We’re simply trying to offer a proposal to help resolve a debate which has largely stagnated after five years. It’s up to Congress, the FCC, other policymakers – and the American public – to take it from here. Whether you favor our proposal or not, we urge you to take your views directly to yourSenators<http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm> and Representatives <https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml> in Washington. We hope this helps address some of the inaccuracies that have appeared about our proposal. We’ll provide updates as the situation continues to develop. On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Stefano Quintarelli <stefano(a)quintarelli.it > wrote: > marco, > > c'era una consultazione pubblica cui Google/Verizon hanno risposto o e' > stata una inziativa estemporanea delle due societa' ? > > quale e' il tuo parere sulla neutralita' della rete ? e' un valore da > preservare o no ? (non parlo di apertura, ma di neutralita) e poi, la > posizione di Google al riguardo e' cambiata o no ? > > poi, nel dettaglio, > > negli obiettivi, al punto 1 in italiano dice "gli utenti devono essere > liberi di scegliere.." mentre l'originale in inglese dice "gli utenti > dovrebbero scegliere.." > > nelle proposte: > punto 2 in italiano: > i fornitori di servizi a banda larga fissa non potrebbero discriminare o > dare precedenza a determinati contenuti, applicazioni o servizi online a > danno dell’utenza o della concorrenza. > > punto 2 in inglese: > 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. > > la versione in inglese non esclude che cio' si possa fare, ma che si > possa fare in un modo che causa danni agli utenti o ai concorrenti. > (ovvero non e' sufficiente dimostrare che avviene discriminazione, ma > che l'effetto di tale prioritizzazione implichi un danno a > utenti/competitor > > La frase > "Quindi, oltre a non bloccare o devalorizzare contenuti e applicazioni > online, i fornitori di servizi a banda larga fissa non potrebbero > favorire uno specifico traffico online rispetto ad un altro." > viene smentita nel successivo punto 5, quando si dice > "Pertanto, la nostra proposta permetterebbe ai fornitori di servizi a > banda larga di offrire servizi online addizionali e differenziati, in > aggiunta ai servizi, attualmente offerti, di accesso Internet e ai > servizi video" > > ovvero non tutti i bit sono uguali, alcuni sono piu' uguali deli altri. > > > Domanda: il fatto che > " > la FCC avrebbe il potere di attuare tali principi di apertura in una > logica caso-per-caso attraverso un procedimento azionabile a richiesta > di parte. La FCC potrebbe agire rapidamente per porre termine a > comportamenti in violazione dei suddetti principi e avrebbe il potere di > imporre delle multe fino a un massimo di 2 milioni di dollari per coloro > i quali non si attenessero alle sue decisioni. > " > Marco, secondo te non depotenzia l'azione di ufficio per cause antitrust > e le relative sanzioni ? 2MUSD sono bruscolini, no ? > rispetto a un ipotetica prsona che guadagna 30.000 euro l'anno, la > sanzione MASSIMA sarebbe pari a ben 2,3 euro per Google e 2,2 euro per > Verizon. > > poi, nel merito del resto, ho scritto abbastanza sul mio blog, incluso > quella proposta (che mi sembra scellerata) di sbinare la banda a secondo > dei servizi (quinto principio) > > ciao, s. > > Marco Pancini wrote: > > Cari Tutti, > > Vi segnalo questo post del nostro blog ufficiale che parla dell'accordo > > di policy che Google ha concluso negli Stati Uniti con Verizon sul tema > > dell'open internet: > > > http://googleitalia.blogspot.com/2010/08/una-proposta-congiunta-per-una-ret… > > > > Condivido in pieno le parole con le quali David John Collins, il nostro > > responsabile comunicazione e public affair per l'Europa, ha introdotto > > questo tema: > > > > /In Google siamo convinti che sia il potere della natura dinamica ed > > aperta della rete a guidare lâ€™innovazione, gli investimenti e la > > crescita economica. > > Conservare questa apertura richiede il nostro coinvolgimento nel > > dibattito proattivo con gli altri attori dellâ€™ecosistema e con le > > AutoritÃ , per assicurare che le regole di funzionamento di Internet > > offrano agli utenti la miglior esperienza online possibile. > > Ieri abbiamo annunciato una serie di proposte comuni con Verizon, > > operatore di telecomunicazioni, per raggiungere questo obiettivo negli > > Stati Uniti. > > Queste proposte mettono in luce il nostro impegno per difendere la > > natura aperta della rete e permettere la continuazione degli > > investimenti nelle infrastrutture a banda larga. Queste indicazioni sono > > specifiche per lo sviluppo di Internet negli Stati Uniti, ma restiamo > > impegnati a proseguire il dialogo su questi temi anche in Europa/ > > > > Resto a vostra disposizione per maggiori informazioni. > > > > A presto. > > marco > > > > -- > > Marco Pancini > > European Senior Policy Counsel > > Google Italy > > Corso Europa, 2 > > 20122 Milano, Italia > > Tel. +39 02 36618524 > > Cell. +39.348.9946222 > > pancini(a)google.com <mailto:pancini@google.com> > > Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/googlepolicyit > > > > This email may be confidential or privileged. If you received this > > communication by mistake, please don't forward it to anyone else, please > > erase all copies and attachments, and please let me know that it went to > > the wrong person. Thanks. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > nexa mailing list > > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > -- > blog.quintarelli.it > www.eximia.it > www.reeplay.it > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > -- Marco Pancini European Senior Policy Counsel Google Italy Corso Europa, 2 20122 Milano, Italia Tel. +39 02 36618524 Cell. +39.348.9946222 pancini(a)google.com Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/googlepolicyit This email may be confidential or privileged. If you received this communication by mistake, please don't forward it to anyone else, please erase all copies and attachments, and please let me know that it went to the wrong person. Thanks.

Aug. 13, 2010

Re: [nexa] Google-Verizon: una proposta congiunta per una rete aperta

by Stefano Quintarelli

marco, c'era una consultazione pubblica cui Google/Verizon hanno risposto o e' stata una inziativa estemporanea delle due societa' ? quale e' il tuo parere sulla neutralita' della rete ? e' un valore da preservare o no ? (non parlo di apertura, ma di neutralita) e poi, la posizione di Google al riguardo e' cambiata o no ? poi, nel dettaglio, negli obiettivi, al punto 1 in italiano dice "gli utenti devono essere liberi di scegliere.." mentre l'originale in inglese dice "gli utenti dovrebbero scegliere.." nelle proposte: punto 2 in italiano: i fornitori di servizi a banda larga fissa non potrebbero discriminare o dare precedenza a determinati contenuti, applicazioni o servizi online a danno dell’utenza o della concorrenza. punto 2 in inglese: 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. la versione in inglese non esclude che cio' si possa fare, ma che si possa fare in un modo che causa danni agli utenti o ai concorrenti. (ovvero non e' sufficiente dimostrare che avviene discriminazione, ma che l'effetto di tale prioritizzazione implichi un danno a utenti/competitor La frase "Quindi, oltre a non bloccare o devalorizzare contenuti e applicazioni online, i fornitori di servizi a banda larga fissa non potrebbero favorire uno specifico traffico online rispetto ad un altro." viene smentita nel successivo punto 5, quando si dice "Pertanto, la nostra proposta permetterebbe ai fornitori di servizi a banda larga di offrire servizi online addizionali e differenziati, in aggiunta ai servizi, attualmente offerti, di accesso Internet e ai servizi video" ovvero non tutti i bit sono uguali, alcuni sono piu' uguali deli altri. Domanda: il fatto che " la FCC avrebbe il potere di attuare tali principi di apertura in una logica caso-per-caso attraverso un procedimento azionabile a richiesta di parte. La FCC potrebbe agire rapidamente per porre termine a comportamenti in violazione dei suddetti principi e avrebbe il potere di imporre delle multe fino a un massimo di 2 milioni di dollari per coloro i quali non si attenessero alle sue decisioni. " Marco, secondo te non depotenzia l'azione di ufficio per cause antitrust e le relative sanzioni ? 2MUSD sono bruscolini, no ? rispetto a un ipotetica prsona che guadagna 30.000 euro l'anno, la sanzione MASSIMA sarebbe pari a ben 2,3 euro per Google e 2,2 euro per Verizon. poi, nel merito del resto, ho scritto abbastanza sul mio blog, incluso quella proposta (che mi sembra scellerata) di sbinare la banda a secondo dei servizi (quinto principio) ciao, s. Marco Pancini wrote: > Cari Tutti, > Vi segnalo questo post del nostro blog ufficiale che parla dell'accordo > di policy che Google ha concluso negli Stati Uniti con Verizon sul tema > dell'open internet: > http://googleitalia.blogspot.com/2010/08/una-proposta-congiunta-per-una-ret… > > Condivido in pieno le parole con le quali David John Collins, il nostro > responsabile comunicazione e public affair per l'Europa, ha introdotto > questo tema: > > /In Google siamo convinti che sia il potere della natura dinamica ed > aperta della rete a guidare lâ€™innovazione, gli investimenti e la > crescita economica. > Conservare questa apertura richiede il nostro coinvolgimento nel > dibattito proattivo con gli altri attori dellâ€™ecosistema e con le > AutoritÃ , per assicurare che le regole di funzionamento di Internet > offrano agli utenti la miglior esperienza online possibile. > Ieri abbiamo annunciato una serie di proposte comuni con Verizon, > operatore di telecomunicazioni, per raggiungere questo obiettivo negli > Stati Uniti. > Queste proposte mettono in luce il nostro impegno per difendere la > natura aperta della rete e permettere la continuazione degli > investimenti nelle infrastrutture a banda larga. Queste indicazioni sono > specifiche per lo sviluppo di Internet negli Stati Uniti, ma restiamo > impegnati a proseguire il dialogo su questi temi anche in Europa/ > > Resto a vostra disposizione per maggiori informazioni. > > A presto. > marco > > -- > Marco Pancini > European Senior Policy Counsel > Google Italy > Corso Europa, 2 > 20122 Milano, Italia > Tel. +39 02 36618524 > Cell. +39.348.9946222 > pancini(a)google.com <mailto:pancini@google.com> > Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/googlepolicyit > > This email may be confidential or privileged. If you received this > communication by mistake, please don't forward it to anyone else, please > erase all copies and attachments, and please let me know that it went to > the wrong person. Thanks. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa -- blog.quintarelli.it www.eximia.it www.reeplay.it

Aug. 13, 2010

Google-Verizon: una proposta congiunta per una rete aperta

by Marco Pancini

Cari Tutti, Vi segnalo questo post del nostro blog ufficiale che parla dell'accordo di policy che Google ha concluso negli Stati Uniti con Verizon sul tema dell'open internet: http://googleitalia.blogspot.com/2010/08/una-proposta-congiunta-per-una-ret… Condivido in pieno le parole con le quali David John Collins, il nostro responsabile comunicazione e public affair per l'Europa, ha introdotto questo tema: *In Google siamo convinti che sia il potere della natura dinamica ed aperta della rete a guidare l’innovazione, gli investimenti e la crescita economica. Conservare questa apertura richiede il nostro coinvolgimento nel dibattito proattivo con gli altri attori dell’ecosistema e con le Autorità, per assicurare che le regole di funzionamento di Internet offrano agli utenti la miglior esperienza online possibile. Ieri abbiamo annunciato una serie di proposte comuni con Verizon, operatore di telecomunicazioni, per raggiungere questo obiettivo negli Stati Uniti. Queste proposte mettono in luce il nostro impegno per difendere la natura aperta della rete e permettere la continuazione degli investimenti nelle infrastrutture a banda larga. Queste indicazioni sono specifiche per lo sviluppo di Internet negli Stati Uniti, ma restiamo impegnati a proseguire il dialogo su questi temi anche in Europa* Resto a vostra disposizione per maggiori informazioni. A presto. marco -- Marco Pancini European Senior Policy Counsel Google Italy Corso Europa, 2 20122 Milano, Italia Tel. +39 02 36618524 Cell. +39.348.9946222 pancini(a)google.com Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/googlepolicyit This email may be confidential or privileged. If you received this communication by mistake, please don't forward it to anyone else, please erase all copies and attachments, and please let me know that it went to the wrong person. Thanks.

Aug. 13, 2010

Spazio di libertà sicurezza e giustizia

by Margherita Salvadori

Segnalo che sulla G.U.U.E. 27.7.2010, n. L 195/5 è stato pubblicato l'Accordo tra l'Unione europea e gli Stati Uniti d'America sul trattamento e il trasferimento di dati di messaggistica finanziaria dall'Unione europea agli Stati Uniti ai fini del programma di controllo delle transazioni finanziarie dei terroristi http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOIndex.do?year=2010&serie=L&textfield2=195&Submit… Segnalo, inoltre, un interessante intervento a firma Leda Bargiotti su "Unione Europea e segreto di stato: un quadro normativo ancora in piena evoluzione" postato su un blog che vuole contribuire a rendere più trasparenti le istituzioni http://slsg.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/unione-europea-e-segreto-di-stato-un-q… ms

Aug. 13, 2010

privacy e geotagging

by Alessandro Cappai

Web Photo Geotags Can Reveal More Than You Wish - NYTimes.com http://goo.gl/8CSE *Alessandro Cappai* write me: alessandrocappai(a)gmail.com read me: http://www.passeggeri.net

Aug. 13, 2010

Google-Verizon: una proposta congiunta per una rete aperta (aggiornamento)

by Marco Pancini

Cari, Vi segnalo questo chiarimento in merito all'annuncio di lunedì sul tema della net neutrality: http://googlepolicyeurope.blogspot.com/2010/08/facts-about-our-network-neut… A presto. marco -- Marco Pancini European Senior Policy Counsel Google Italy Corso Europa, 2 20122 Milano, Italia Tel. +39 02 36618524 Cell. +39.348.9946222 pancini(a)google.com Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/googlepolicyit This email may be confidential or privileged. If you received this communication by mistake, please don't forward it to anyone else, please erase all copies and attachments, and please let me know that it went to the wrong person. Thanks.

Aug. 13, 2010

Tim Wu (Slate): "Evil? The alleged Google-Verizon deal that's endangering net neutrality."

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Slate Evil? The alleged Google-Verizon deal that's endangering net neutrality. By Tim Wu Posted Friday, Aug. 6, 2010, at 4:12 PM ET ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On Wednesday, the /New York Times/ reported that Google and Verizon <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/technology/05secret.html> "are nearing an agreement that could ... speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content's creators are willing to pay for the privilege." While both Google and Verizon quickly denied the /NYT/ report <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38576914/>, the newspaper says it's standing by its story <http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100805-724063.html>. If the /Times/ is right, this content-for-cash scheme would be the greatest scandal in Google's history. We could term it "Internet Payola <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola>," after the practice of record labels paying radio stations to play their songs. The plan would probably work like this: In exchange for payment or some other mutually beneficial considerations, Verizon would give special priority to sites like Google.com and YouTube, making them run faster than competitors like Yahoo.com and Hulu. Such a payola scheme would violate the precept of net neutrality, the belief that all packets that travel over the Internet should be treated equally. It would be a betrayal of the public's trust from a firm that has long sold itself as a fair broker and has tirelessly tempered its growing power with its advocacy of "open networking." It would also reveal the need for immediate federal action on net neutrality and continued oversight over all corporate monopolies that control speech and commerce. How could Google be moving away from its "open networking" values? The people I've spoken to at Google claim that no such movement is afoot---that the /New York Times/ story is "wrong." In contrast, another source with knowledge of the discussions says the /Times/ story is "generally accurate." [...] Continua qui: http://www.slate.com/id/2262952/

Aug. 7, 2010

[Schmidt] se guardiamo la tuamail possiamo predire dove andrai

by Stefano Quintarelli

quando si dice "tenere un basso profilo"... http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_ceo_schmidt_people_arent_ready_… -- www.reeplay.it www.eximia.it

Aug. 6, 2010

Re: [nexa] NY Times: "Google and Verizon in Talks on Web Priority"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Grazie, Marco, per la segnalazione e la precisazione. Posso pero' commentare che l'intervento di Eric Schmidt non mi sembra sufficientemente netto? In altri termini, lo trovo un po' troppo "politico" per tranquilizzarmi del tutto, come anche notato in alcuni dei commenti (per esempio, quello di "Concerned Netizen"). Tu come la vedi? juan carlos Marco Pancini wrote (on 05/08/2010 16.18): > Ciao a Tutti, > In questo post potete trovare maggiori informazioni: > http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/10/finding-common-ground-on-ope… > > Questa è anche la dichiarazione di Eric Schmidt sull'argomento: > "The New York Times is quite simply wrong. We have not had any > conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google > traffic. We remain as committed as we always have been to an open > Internet." > > A presto. > marco > > On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 8:12 AM, J.C. DE MARTIN <demartin(a)polito.it > <mailto:demartin@polito.it>> wrote: > > Questa mi sembra una notizia, se confermata, di quelle importanti. > > jc > > August 4, 2010 > > > Google and Verizon in Talks on Web Priority > > > By EDWARD WYATT > <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/edward_wyatt/i…> > > WASHINGTON — Google > <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/google_inc/index.html…> > and Verizon > <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/verizon_communication…>, > two leading players in Internet service and content, are nearing > an agreement that could allow Verizon to speed some online content > to Internet users more quickly if the content’s creators are > willing to pay for the privilege. > > The charges could be paid by companies, like YouTube > <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/youtube/index.html?in…>, > owned by Google, for example, to Verizon, one of the nation’s > leading Internet service providers, to ensure that its content > received priority as it made its way to consumers. The agreement > could eventually lead to higher charges for Internet users. > > Such an agreement could overthrow a once-sacred tenet of Internet > policy known as net neutrality > <http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/net_neutr…>, > in which no form of content is favored over another. In its place, > consumers could soon see a new, tiered system, which, like cable > television, imposes higher costs for premium levels of service. > > Any agreement between Verizon and Google could also upend the > efforts of the Federal Communications Commission > <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal…> > to assert its authority over broadband service, which was severely > restricted by a federal appeals court decision in April. > > People close to the negotiations who were not authorized to speak > publicly about them said an agreement could be reached as soon as > next week. If completed, Google, whose Android operating system > powers many Verizon wireless phones, would agree not to challenge > Verizon’s ability to manage its broadband Internet network as it > pleased. > > [...] > > Continua qui: > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/technology/05secret.html > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it <mailto:nexa@server-nexa.polito.it> > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > > > > -- > Marco Pancini > European Senior Policy Counsel > Google Italy > Corso Europa, 2 > 20122 Milano, Italia > Tel. +39 02 36618524 > Cell. +39.348.9946222 > pancini(a)google.com <mailto:pancini@google.com> > Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/googlepolicyit > > This email may be confidential or privileged. If you received this > communication by mistake, please don't forward it to anyone else, > please erase all copies and attachments, and please let me know that > it went to the wrong person. Thanks.

Aug. 5, 2010

Re: [nexa] NY Times: "Google and Verizon in Talks on Web Priority"

by Stefano Quintarelli

"could could could" could anche be che mettono dei file sulla Content delivery network di verizon, per "speed up" la delivery dei contnuti. Btw, apple lo fa da sempre ed e' la ragione di esistenza di akamai e colleghi... Questa storia degli accordi preferenziali di google e' un po' come il D'alia, periodicamente riemerge... La differenziazione di performance sull'accesso si fa da sempre. .NET vendeva una SLIP/PPP a 2,4MLit contro le 240KL di TI o il gratis di VOL. noi avevamo un overbooking 1:5, TI lo aveva 1:30, VoL >1:100.. (da noi c'era anche il tecnico di supporto di riferimento che rispondeva in 3 squilli). Quando siemo entrati nel residenziale abbiamo differenziato qualita' di servizio con una offerta massimo 1:30 e call center ben dimensionato. Il brand era diverso, pur dicendo che era di I.NET e l'infrastruttura era la stessa. tutti i principali content provider italiani vrnivano da I.NET in housing perche' avevamo le performance migliori e due clienti che avevano l'housing a 256Kbps su porta dedicata (c'era anche un livello di servizio non garantito su lan condivisa) andavano entrambi esattamente uguale ed esattamente la meta' di chi aveva un 512k. IMHO la violazione della Net Neutrality si ha quando, tra due utenti che hanno lo stesso abbonamento, uno ha prestazioni maggiori dell'altro accedendo a dei server con la stessa connessione, e cio' accade vuoi peril contenuto dei pacchetti, vuoi per diverso accordi contrattuali, vuoi per privilegiare un servzizio dell'operatore stesso, vuoi per favorire un terzo rispetto ad altro terzo. E questo ha a che fare con l'antitrust poi c'e il tema dell'intercettazone dei pacchetti a fini diversi, non richiesti dall'utente (tipo profiling del traffico) e questo ha a che fare con la privacy. In sintesi... penso sia meglio aspettare che ci siano meno could, perche maybe (likely) could be una bolla di sapone... Ciao, s. ___ www.reeplay.it www.eximia.it ..... Original Message ....... On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 16:58:40 +0200 "Andrea Glorioso" <andrea(a)digitalpolicy.it> wrote: >Policy by leaks? > >On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 8:12 AM, J.C. DE MARTIN <demartin(a)polito.it> wrote: >> Questa mi sembra una notizia, se confermata, di quelle importanti. >> >> jc >> >> August 4, 2010 >> >> Google and Verizon in Talks on Web Priority >> >> By EDWARD WYATT >> >> WASHINGTON — Google and Verizon, two leading players in Internet service and >> content, are nearing an agreement that could allow Verizon to speed some >> online content to Internet users more quickly if the content’s creators are >> willing to pay for the privilege. >> >> The charges could be paid by companies, like YouTube, owned by Google, for >> example, to Verizon, one of the nation’s leading Internet service providers, >> to ensure that its content received priority as it made its way to >> consumers. The agreement could eventually lead to higher charges for >> Internet users. >> >> Such an agreement could overthrow a once-sacred tenet of Internet policy >> known as net neutrality, in which no form of content is favored over >> another. In its place, consumers could soon see a new, tiered system, which, >> like cable television, imposes higher costs for premium levels of service. >> >> Any agreement between Verizon and Google could also upend the efforts of the >> Federal Communications Commission to assert its authority over broadband >> service, which was severely restricted by a federal appeals court decision >> in April. >> >> People close to the negotiations who were not authorized to speak publicly >> about them said an agreement could be reached as soon as next week. If >> completed, Google, whose Android operating system powers many Verizon >> wireless phones, would agree not to challenge Verizon’s ability to manage >> its broadband Internet network as it pleased. >> >> [...] >> >> Continua qui: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/technology/05secret.html >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nexa mailing list >> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >> >> >_______________________________________________ >nexa mailing list >nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

Aug. 5, 2010

Re: [nexa] NY Times: "Google and Verizon in Talks on Web Priority"

by Andrea Glorioso

Policy by leaks? On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 8:12 AM, J.C. DE MARTIN <demartin(a)polito.it> wrote: > Questa mi sembra una notizia, se confermata, di quelle importanti. > > jc > > August 4, 2010 > > Google and Verizon in Talks on Web Priority > > By EDWARD WYATT > > WASHINGTON — Google and Verizon, two leading players in Internet service and > content, are nearing an agreement that could allow Verizon to speed some > online content to Internet users more quickly if the content’s creators are > willing to pay for the privilege. > > The charges could be paid by companies, like YouTube, owned by Google, for > example, to Verizon, one of the nation’s leading Internet service providers, > to ensure that its content received priority as it made its way to > consumers. The agreement could eventually lead to higher charges for > Internet users. > > Such an agreement could overthrow a once-sacred tenet of Internet policy > known as net neutrality, in which no form of content is favored over > another. In its place, consumers could soon see a new, tiered system, which, > like cable television, imposes higher costs for premium levels of service. > > Any agreement between Verizon and Google could also upend the efforts of the > Federal Communications Commission to assert its authority over broadband > service, which was severely restricted by a federal appeals court decision > in April. > > People close to the negotiations who were not authorized to speak publicly > about them said an agreement could be reached as soon as next week. If > completed, Google, whose Android operating system powers many Verizon > wireless phones, would agree not to challenge Verizon’s ability to manage > its broadband Internet network as it pleased. > > [...] > > Continua qui: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/technology/05secret.html > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > >

Aug. 5, 2010

TR: "Dissent Made Safer"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Non nuovo, scusate, ma me l'ero perso. Rilevante anche per lo studio di Silvia Bisi (NEXA Fellow) sull'anonimato online. jc TECHNOLOGY REVIEW May/June 2009 *Dissent Made Safer* *How anonymity technology could save free speech on the Internet.* By David Talbot "Sokwanele" means "enough is enough" in a certain Bantu dialect. It is also the name of a Zimbabwean pro-democracy website whose bloggers last year published accounts of atrocities by Robert Mugabe's regime and posted Election Day updates describing voter intimidation and apparent ballot stuffing. You can visit Sokwanele's "terror album" and see photographs: of a hospitalized 70-year-old woman who'd been beaten and thrown on her cooking fire (she later died, the site says); of firebombed homes; of people with deep wounds carved into their backs. You can find detailed, frequently updated maps describing regional violence and other incidents. You will be confronted with gruesome news, starkly captioned: "Joshua Bakacheza's Body Found." Because this horrific content is so readily available, it is easy to overlook the courage it took to produce it. The anonymous photographers and polling-station bloggers who uploaded the Sokwanele material remain very much in danger. In a place like Zimbabwe, where saying the wrong thing can get you killed or thrown in prison on treason charges, you take precautions: you're careful about whom you talk to; you're discreet when you enter a clinic to take pictures. And when you get to the point of putting your information on the Internet, you need protection from the possibility that your computer's digital address will be traced back to you. Maybe, at that point, you use Tor. [...] Continua qui: http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/22427/?a=f

Aug. 5, 2010

Re: [nexa] NY Times: "Google and Verizon in Talks on Web Priority"

by Marco Pancini

Ciao a Tutti, In questo post potete trovare maggiori informazioni: http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/10/finding-common-ground-on-ope… Questa è anche la dichiarazione di Eric Schmidt sull'argomento: "The New York Times is quite simply wrong. We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google traffic. We remain as committed as we always have been to an open Internet." A presto. marco On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 8:12 AM, J.C. DE MARTIN <demartin(a)polito.it> wrote: > Questa mi sembra una notizia, se confermata, di quelle importanti. > > jc > > August 4, 2010 > Google and Verizon in Talks on Web Priority By EDWARD WYATT<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/edward_wyatt/i…> > > WASHINGTON — Google<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/google_inc/index.html…>and > Verizon<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/verizon_communication…>, > two leading players in Internet service and content, are nearing an > agreement that could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet > users more quickly if the content’s creators are willing to pay for the > privilege. > > The charges could be paid by companies, like YouTube<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/youtube/index.html?in…>, > owned by Google, for example, to Verizon, one of the nation’s leading > Internet service providers, to ensure that its content received priority as > it made its way to consumers. The agreement could eventually lead to higher > charges for Internet users. > > Such an agreement could overthrow a once-sacred tenet of Internet policy > known as net neutrality<http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/net_neutr…>, > in which no form of content is favored over another. In its place, consumers > could soon see a new, tiered system, which, like cable television, imposes > higher costs for premium levels of service. > > Any agreement between Verizon and Google could also upend the efforts of > the Federal Communications Commission<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal…>to assert its authority over broadband service, which was severely > restricted by a federal appeals court decision in April. > > People close to the negotiations who were not authorized to speak publicly > about them said an agreement could be reached as soon as next week. If > completed, Google, whose Android operating system powers many Verizon > wireless phones, would agree not to challenge Verizon’s ability to manage > its broadband Internet network as it pleased. > [...] > > Continua qui: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/technology/05secret.html > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > -- Marco Pancini European Senior Policy Counsel Google Italy Corso Europa, 2 20122 Milano, Italia Tel. +39 02 36618524 Cell. +39.348.9946222 pancini(a)google.com Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/googlepolicyit This email may be confidential or privileged. If you received this communication by mistake, please don't forward it to anyone else, please erase all copies and attachments, and please let me know that it went to the wrong person. Thanks.

Aug. 5, 2010

NY Times: "Google Will Sell Brand Names as Keywords in Europe"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

August 4, 2010 Google Will Sell Brand Names as Keywords in Europe By MATTHEW SALTMARSH <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/matthew_saltma…> PARIS --- The Internet giant Google <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/google_inc/index.html…> said on Wednesday that it would change its search policy for most of Europe to allow advertisers to buy and use as keywords terms that have been trademarked by others. Previously, brand owners could file a trademark complaint with Google to prevent third-party ads from being returned alongside the results of a search of a trademarked name, like Louis Vuitton or Prada. The decision will be effective Sept. 14 and extends to the rest of Europe changes that were made in Britain and Ireland in 2008. In the United States and Canada, Google has been using the policy since 2004. Google's move stems from a decision by the European Court of Justice <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/e/europea…> in March. The court broadly ruled that Google had respected trademark law by allowing advertisers to bid for keywords corresponding to third-party trademarks. [...] Continua qui: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/technology/05google.html

Aug. 5, 2010