If the buzz on the Internet is to be believed, Google and Verizon are working on their own net neutrality deal:
Google and Verizon have negotiated an agreement on how to handle Web traffic, according to a report by Bloomberg on August 5th.
The deal was arrived at separate of the ongoing negotiations between the Federal Communications Commission and other Web and telecommunications giants, according to Bloomberg’s anonymous sources.
As part of the deal, Verizon would agree not to selectively throttle Internet traffic through its pipes. That would not, however, apply to data traveling over its wireless network for mobile phones, the report says.
There are ramifications if this is indeed true.
If the reports are true, it would be a blow to the ongoing negotiations between many of the giants of the industry and the FCC, as well as the FCC’s controversial efforts to apply its regulatory powers to broadband services.
Net neutrality is of course a very big deal these days. With broadband speeds getting faster and with more online content available for people to listen to and view, there are concerns providers will set up tiered services, blocking access to content from competitors, and creating artificial scarcity forcing consumers to purchase only their products at much higher prices.
It’s a debate in where I probably stand in the minority.
I do not support net neutrality.
My reasoning for this is pretty basic. I don’t want the federal government, and particularly the FCC mucking around with and regulating the Internet. Once they get their fingers in anywhere beyond where it is now, we’re only asking for trouble. Want evidence? Do any of you listen to FM radio anymore? Do any of you only have broadcast television? iTunes, Pandora, Dish Network and cable television are not bound by FCC regulations.
Do I wish to see ISP’s blocking content? No. Do I want to see them charging absurdly high prices for premium speeds? No.
So what is the solution?
Choices.
Instead of having the government tell Brighthouse or AT&T how to manage their network, they should be pushing to make sure customers have as many alternatives to choose from as possible including the expansion of municipal broadband. I also like what Google is doing with ‘Google Fiber For Communities.’
People want the fastest Internet they can get and pay fair prices for doing it. I think it can be done without regulation by the FCC.
What do you think? Let’s discuss.
[images: Taramisu, Kongharald, wwarby]
BenJPickett says
The issues that I have with this is that the FCC already has their fingers wound all over the internet. There is so much government regulation and control that it will be nearly impossible to create the type of competition needed for this to be even somewhat successful. I’ll use an example of where I live, all of our cable companies have “zones” so they don’t compete. I’m stuck with Comcast, Qwest or Clear for my internet. If I move down the road about 3 or 4 miles I will have Verizon DSL instead of Qwest DSL. If I move about 20 minutes away I will have Wave instead of Comcast cable.
That has to be abolished before anything else can be done otherwise the demand to move into an area with the ISP offering the best additional service at the best price will drive the property values up for those locations. ISP’s must be thrown into a survival of the fittest first. They have to prove that they offer a service worth subscribing to by choice, not because nothing else is available. I guarantee that I would not use Comcast if I had the choice.
This also means if it comes to extra services rather than support and bandwidth, small time ISPs don’t stand a chance against the muscle of the big players.
Lets not forget that in this Google Verizon pact, Verizon says they will not control speed from sources to their DSL and FiOS platforms but mentions nothing about mobile. It also leaves open that other ISPs can control speed. So while ISP X may offer you 100 MBps if you decide to go to ISP Y’s website, they might offer you 2 kbps while you visit that site. Or, they could block it all together. Then this also allows for special internet packages so if you want to watch or check sports scores, you have to buy the sports package at an extra cost a month; the media package if you want to watch Hulu or Netflix; the political package for your needs in that area. Then the ISP can also decide whether they want you to have access to all that information. If they are heavily funded by liberals or conservatives, they can block access to the opposing party’s websites altogether or force you to pay may to get access to them. This sort of restriction could easily drive a monthly bill upwards of $120.
All in all, this Google Verizon deal is very far from good for the consumer. Especially with our current system works.
And by the way, the HD on my rabbit ears looks better than the HD I could get from Comcast.
JayCaruso says
Ben you kind of tread where I think the solution is. The government should focus on providing more avenues of competition for our access.
I know that cable and telephone companies wince at the notion of other companies using their infrastructure and claim it is “theirs” and whine about the amount of money they expend but that’s too bad. In almost any case, municipalities and states have provided tax exemptions and tax breaks for laying down fiber and cable as well as land use rights. They cannot sit there and claim it was all done because of them. They can charge other providers nominal fees (set by municipalities).
That’s where we need to go.
BenJPickett says
We see a lot of that where I live too. ATT and Bell have put down 90% of the phone lines in the area, and those lines are now owned and maintained by Qwest and Sprint and they sell the usage rights in most districts to some small telecom companies. This has to do with some other FCC regulation that forces them to offer up so much of their infrastructure for other uses and prevents them from getting so big.
While I do like some of what was in the document released by Google and Verizon, the holes that it has are too big and potentially too damaging to us as the consumers to be ignored and to let through because of what could be positive. And in my opinion the only role that the FCC should play in this is ensuring that we as the consumers aren’t abused by price gouging, the providers don’t become monopolies and the abolishment of contracts that tie us to horrible service for months or years. I say that last one because all of my hosting solutions for my IT network are month-to-month and they work hard when I have a problem and I’m a small fry in the grand scheme of things. Everything I’m tied to for a year or more, leaves me feeling like they could care less. I like to feel valued.
Stephen Bateman says
Excellent post Jay. I hope to see the Gov’t remain as far off the internet as possible. But then again, stuff like adults posing as children isn’t good.
JayCaruso says
The problem I have is that if you look at the FCC, aside from Chairman Genachowski, there isn’t a single member that has worked in the tech field.
Michael Copps – History professor, Chief of Staff to Senator Fritz Hollings, Asst. Secretary at Commerce Dept.
Robert M. McDowell – Lobbyist and lawyer
Mignon Clyburn – Publisher/General Manager of local newspaper, Congresswoman.
Meredith Attwell Baker – Attorney, government employee
These are not the people I want making these decisions.
Ben says
I have to say this is the first I’m hearing about this. Unfortunatly, I’m probably like most people who just deal with it as it changes instead of thinking about it before it happens.
Quick question. What role does the govermnent play right now in regulating the internet and providers? How would “neutrality” change that? Would they become a team in the league, a referee, or just an event coordinator?
Finally what can we do to help shape the outcome in a benefitial way?