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

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