RMRK is retiring.
Registration is disabled. The site will remain online, but eventually become a read-only archive. More information.

RMRK.net has nothing to do with Blockchains, Cryptocurrency or NFTs. We have been around since the early 2000s, but there is a new group using the RMRK name that deals with those things. We have nothing to do with them.
NFTs are a scam, and if somebody is trying to persuade you to buy or invest in crypto/blockchain/NFT content, please turn them down and save your money. See this video for more information.
ITT: Google Fucks Up

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

**
I didn't really think about it
Rep:
Level 85
Spoiler for "Google and Verizon's Framework Proposal":
  Verizon-Google Legislative Framework Proposal

Google and Verizon have been working together to find ways to preserve the open Internet and 
the vibrant and innovative markets it supports, to protect consumers, and to promote continued 
investment in broadband access. With these goals in mind, together we offer a proposed open 
Internet framework for the consideration of policymakers and the public.   

We believe such a framework should include the following key elements:

Consumer Protections: A broadband Internet access service provider would be prohibited from 
preventing users of its broadband Internet access service from--

                (1) sending and receiving lawful content of their choice;   

                (2) running lawful applications and using lawful services of their choice; and

                (3) connecting their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network or 
        service, facilitate theft of service, or harm other users of the service

Non-Discrimination Requirement:  In providing broadband Internet access service, a provider 
would be prohibited from engaging in undue discrimination against any lawful Internet content, 
application, or service in a manner that causes meaningful harm to competition or to users
Prioritization of Internet traffic would be presumed inconsistent with the non-discrimination 
standard, but the presumption could be rebutted

Transparency: Providers of broadband Internet access service would be required to disclose 
accurate and relevant information in plain language about the characteristics and capabilities of 
their offerings, their broadband network management, and other practices necessary for 
consumers and other users to make informed choices.   

Network Management: Broadband Internet access service providers are permitted to engage in 
reasonable network management.  Reasonable network management includes any technically 
sound practice: to reduce or mitigate the effects of congestion on its network; to ensure network 
security or integrity; to address traffic that is unwanted by or harmful to users, the provider’s 
network, or the Internet; to ensure service quality to a subscriber; to provide services or 
capabilities consistent with a consumer’s choices; that is consistent with the technical 
requirements, standards, or best practices adopted by an independent, widely-recognized Internet 
community governance initiative or standard-setting organization; to prioritize general classes or 
types of Internet traffic, based on latency; or otherwise to manage the daily operation of its 
network

Additional Online Services: A provider that offers a broadband Internet access service 
complying with the above principles could offer any other additional or differentiated services. 
Such other services would have to be distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband 
Internet access service, but could make use of or access Internet content, applications or services 
and could include traffic prioritization.  The FCC would publish an annual report on the effect of
these additional services, and immediately report if it finds at any time that these services 
threaten the meaningful availability of broadband Internet access services or have been devised 
or promoted in a manner designed to evade these consumer protections

Wireless Broadband: Because of the unique technical and operational characteristics of 
wireless networks, and the competitive and still-developing nature of wireless broadband 
services, only the transparency principle would apply to wireless broadband at this time. The 
U.S. Government Accountability Office would report to Congress annually on the continued 
development and robustness of wireless broadband Internet access services. 

Case-By-Case Enforcement: The FCC would enforce the consumer protection and 
nondiscrimination requirements through case-by-case adjudication, but would have no 
rulemaking authority with respect to those provisions.  Parties would be encouraged to use non-
governmental dispute resolution processes established by independent, widely-recognized 
Internet community governance initiatives, and the FCC would be directed to give appropriate 
deference to decisions or advisory opinions of such groups.  The FCC could grant injunctive 
relief for violations of the consumer protection and non-discrimination provisions. The FCC 
could impose a forfeiture of up to $2,000,000 for knowing violations of the consumer-protection 
or non-discrimination provisions.  The proposed framework would not affect rights or 
obligations under existing Federal or State laws that generally apply to businesses, and would not
create any new private right of action

Regulatory Authority: The FCC would have exclusive authority to oversee broadband Internet 
access service, but would not have any authority over Internet software applications, content or 
services.  Regulatory authorities would not be permitted to regulate broadband Internet access 
service.   

Broadband Access for Americans: Broadband Internet access would be eligible for Federal 
universal service fund support to spur deployment in unserved areas and to support programs to 
encourage broadband adoption by low-income populations.  In addition, the FCC would be 
required to complete intercarrier compensation reform within 12 months.  Broadband Internet 
access service and traffic or services using Internet protocol would be considered exclusively 
interstate in nature.  In general, broadband Internet access service providers would ensure that 
the service is accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities

Which basically sums up to this.

This made me angry at google, which made the next bit really entertaining.

Oracle Sues Google over Android!

Had some good lulz over that one.

« Last Edit: August 14, 2010, 11:38:58 PM by Zombie »

********
Hungry
Rep:
Level 96
Mawbeast
2013 Best ArtistParticipant - GIAW 11Secret Santa 2013 ParticipantFor the great victory in the Breakfast War.2012 Best Game Creator (Non-RM Programs)~Bronze - GIAW 9Project of the Month winner for December 2009Project of the Month winner for August 20082011 Best Game Creator (Non RM)Gold - GIAW Halloween
It could be taken one of two ways.  My understanding is that 'public internet' is the term always used to define broadband traffic, separating it from other services that run through the wires.  Also Google has stated that 'additional services' pertain to things unrelated to 'public internet'.

Or they could secretly (not really secretly) be evil.

Also fix your links.

FCF3a A+ C- D H- M P+ R T W- Z- Sf RLCT a cmn+++ d++ e++ f h+++ iw+++ j+ p sf+
Follow my project: MBlok | Find me on: Bandcamp | Twitter | Patreon

*
Resident Cloud
Rep:
Level 91
Oh god the internet is a mess, also patents on software concepts :S.

I say we tear down the internet and rebuild it