Reason Writers Around the Web: Peter Suderman at AOL News on Google, Verizon, and Net Neutrality

Over at AOL News, Reason Associate Editor Peter Suderman takes a look at the joint Google-Verizon Net neutrality proposal, the FCC's current position of weakness, and how both could shape the future of the Net:

Earlier this week, longtime net neutrality supporter Google teamed up with longtime net neutrality opponent Verizon to offer a proposed framework for the regulation of the Internet. The proposal would prohibit Internet service providers from discriminating on wireline networks—like cable or DSL—but would also let ISPs charge some Web content providers more for speedier service. In addition, it would let wireless networks—such as those that serve iPhones and BlackBerrys—operate outside of neutrality rules.

Both Google and Verizon have business interests that are served by the deal. But the proposal also serves as a way for two major industry players to take the lead at a moment when the Federal Communications Commission is faltering. Will the proposal allow both companies to hurdle the agency's intended regulatory barriers? Perhaps. But the real question is whether the FCC should be involved at all.

The Google-Verizon proposal comes at a time when, at least on Internet policy, the FCC looks increasingly weak. In theory, the FCC is charged with overseeing the domestic network of data-carrying landlines and wireless signals that make up the Internet. But many of its recent regulatory plans have been foiled. Now, despite attempts at compromise, it's having trouble finding backers for its agenda.

Read the whole thing here.

Comments

[Corduroy]

The furor and despair at slashdot, wired, cnet, et al is palpable.

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Bill]

We need to keep our foot on the throat of the internet.

[StupendousMan]

I'm all for ISPs et al, running their businesses as they see fit with the following stipulations:

1. They payback all of the subsides and tax breaks they received in the late 90's to build out high speed fiber networks nationwide, which never appeared- directly to citizens in each service area not local municipalities.

2. They are required to re-negotiate wire runs and wireless spectrum contracts in each service area with citizen boards- not entrenched local bureaucrats.

There, now they're actually free market companies beholden to no one but their customers. No more training pants, big boy pants.

[Id]

Thank you for saying this. Government protected monopolies shouldn't be treated like free-market entities. They should lose their sponsor and compete.

[Id]

But I repeat myself.

[StupendousMan]

🙂

[Id]

Thank you for saying this. Government protected monopolies shouldn't be treated like free-market entities. They should lose their sponsor and compete.

[Nash]

I agree with this. It doesn't change the fact that retaining NN would essentially turn the internet into the virtual equivalent of the California freeway system though. Free and equally shitty internet for everybody.

[Lamar]

Shhhhh. Don't point out the advantages that these companies got from years of being protected monopolies and receiving billions in subsidies. You're going to screw up their bottom line.

[Julius Genachowski]

nuh uhhhhh....... i still have power!!!!!!! MOMMY!!!!!!!

[Paul Rako]

Most proponents of net "neutrality" think it means something like Zappa's "Free is when you don't have to pay for nothing or do nothing. We want to be free, free as the wind." They expect service providers to give them a 50Mb/s service since the same piece of wire that gives them 384kb/s is capable of higher rates. The fact that the electronics to deliver it cost more doesn't bother them. Then there are the "neutrality" proponents that think there should be no limit whatsoever on how many bits you download, even though the entire network is subsequently loaded with this higher traffic. The real danger of net neutrality is that some content is favored over others, not that your service provider charges by the byte. It should not be that the Republican National Committee can stream to you at 50Mb/s and the Democratic National Committee only gets 384kb/s. Needless to say, that is exactly what has happened. All because internet consumers are exactly like electricity consumers, they don't really think they should pay for anything, at least not market rates. So the same drooling pigs that gave you The Phone Company have to go upstream to get revenue from the content providers. Letting some people pay for the packets to get to you faster is no different than saying you are going to limit speeds on some traffic. The real problem, the technical problem for service providers has always been the bit-torrent downloads. They bring in hundreds of Gb down their wire or cable every week. But they still want to pay 12 bucks a month, since they are so spoiled and special they think everything should be free, movies, kilobytes, everything. Mommy and daddy told them they were special. So now, ostensibly to counter this real problem, which could have been solved by simply making customers pay not just for a wire or cable to the house, but for the amount of data they send on the cable, rather than doing that, we have exactly what the real dangers of net neutrality are all about. Welcome to 1984, thanks Google. I thought you meant "Do no evil to our customers" not "Do no evil to our profitability". But who can blame them? We are the pigs that refuse to pay by the byte. Note the normal big-business driver here-- barrier to entry. By making sure small companies can never afford streaming speeds of more than 384kb/s there will never ever be another competitor to YouTube, that should make Google happy. The goal of big business is not to crush the other big guys, that would be stupid and way too costly. The goal is to get he government to help you crush the little guy, or leave you alone while you do it. Welcome to Amerika you flag-waving smokestack-kissing libertarians. Yeah, anything business does must be good since they love us so-- and the government should be scaled back so we get it good and hard from every business with more than a billion dollars.

[AnAnarchist]

If you're in favor of net neutrality you're an idiot because letting the FCC get their nose under the internet tent will ultimately end up fucking things up for everyone.
If you're against net neutrality you're an idiot because the five companies (in the US) that own 95%+ of the physical wires in the ground will absolutely collude with content providers in order to increase revenue.
Fortunately, there is a third way. Wireless innovation, assuming it continues at the same pace it has been, will make the entire exercise fully obsolete. As soon as someone invents the Napster of wireless bandwidth access the gatekeepers no longer have control over the gates and the consumer has direct access to the content providers. Excepting, of course, for you hicks in the countryside, you'll still be slaves to the wire holder.
I will be cackling as I twiddle my mustache on that day, I tell you.

[StupendousMan]

Mesh networks and lily pad networks are the way forward to this future you imagine.

[AnAnarchist]

Indeed. Cackling has already begun. Now I will steeple my fingers as I wait for market saturation.

[StupendousMan]

Damn, you've already taken the villain spot. I guess I'll have to settle for henchmen.

[Paul]

Earlier this week, longtime net neutrality supporter Google teamed up with longtime net neutrality opponent Verizon to offer a proposed framework for the regulation of the Internet.

Ok, net neutrality boosters, are you beginning to finally get it?

[Paul]

But the proposal also serves as a way for two major industry players to take the lead at a moment when the Federal Communications Commission is faltering.

Faltering? Faltering how? Let's try this alternative:

Government falters in attempts to control media, who will take the lead?

Why do we feel that someone needs to "take the lead" on something that shouldn't be centrally controlled... at all... in the first place?

[e']

click on my name,you can find cheap watches