The issue of net neutrality is so complex that if I were to completely cover it, I would have a small book, not a blog post. But if I am going to discuss on the Verizon-Google agreement and what my opinion of it is, I at least have to cover the basics.
So, what is Net Neutrality?
Net neutrality is the belief that all data on the Internet should be treated equally. That’s the nuts and bolts, bare bones definition of it. It seems fair and sensible. Internet providers should not be allowed to differentiate or give priority to different data. Period.
The belief is if Internet service providers (ISP) are allowed to discriminate data, it will drastically alter the way the Internet functions, setting up an Internet that functions like cable television. Which is why you see graphics like this one:
In order to prevent this, net neutrality proponents advocate for federal regulations, generally enforced by the Federal Communications Commission.
And that’s where things get hairy.
ISPs spend billions each year to improve and expand their ability to provide quality service to their customers. Do we really want to bring in the red tape involved with government bureaucracy, or is it better to allow the market to dictate how these folks operate their businesses?
Government regulations, opponents of net neutrality say, will have adverse effects on the industry. One study showed how government regulation enforcing net neutrality could cost the economy $80 billion and 600,000 jobs.
So what’s the answer?
That’s what Google and Verizon were trying to work out. And here’s what they came up with.
If you don’t feel like reading it all, Engadget broke it down for you:
- Under the Google / Verizon plan, wired ISPs will be prohibited from blocking any lawful traffic their customers want to send regardless of application or service, and they’ll have to allow customers to connect any legal devices that don’t harm the network or other users.
- …it prohibits wired ISPs from discriminating against any traffic or content in a way that harms competition or users.
- …and carriers will have to “disclose accurate and relevant information in plain language” about what their networks are capable of, how they’re managing them, and what their plans are.
- …and carriers are allowed to engage in any “technically sound” network management practices to reduce congestion, ensure security, address harmful traffic, ensure service quality, prioritize general classes of traffic, and simply go about the daily business of operating their networks.
- It says that carriers and ISPs can offer other, non-internet services to subscribers, as long as they’re “distinguishable in scope and purpose” from regular internet access. That doesn’t mean they have to be totally separate — these other services could make use of internet content — but customers would have to know the difference.
- Under Verizon and Google’s plan, wireless networks would be excused from every provision except the transparency requirement.
- It says the FCC can enforce the consumer protection and non-discrimination provisions, but it can’t make any further rules building on those provisions, and conflicts would be decided using “non-governmental dispute resolution processes” which would take precedence over the FCC. What’s more, the maximum fine the FCC could level would be just $2m — chump change for major carriers.
- …this provision restores the FCC’s authority to regulate the internet that was taken away by the Comcast case.
- This provision basically says the Universal Service Fee most of us pay on our phone bills should be used to build broadband networks in addition to phone lines…
Regarding this, Marguerite Reardon wrote at CNN Tech:
…most of proposal sounded a lot like a plan FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski offered nearly a year ago, which many Net neutrality proponents seemed to support.
However, net neutrality supporters were not happy. Democrat FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps said:
“Some will claim this announcement moves the discussion forward. That’s one of its many problems. It is time to move a decision forward-a decision to reassert FCC authority over broadband telecommunications, to guarantee an open Internet now and forever, and to put the interests of consumers in front of the interests of giant corporations.”
I see what you did there and shows a profound misunderstanding of the free market.
Copps wants us to believe that without the Federal government laying down the law, the consumer will suffer because all the big business will worry about is big business.
Well, yeah. Most successful businesses worry about the business. It’s how they become “big.” And because of that, the consumer will benefit, not suffer.
Because they are focused on “the interests of the giant corporations,” said “giant corporations” will provide the best service they can to the consumer because there are other “giant corporations” out there that would happily take their customers from them. If you can find better service for the money, are you going to stick with a company that provides less quality?
No. Only advocates for the public sector think that way. But this isn’t about health care reform.
Net neutrality supporters say Internet service providers will neglect public Internet users in order to provide higher quality service to entities that pay more for managed services, meaning while companies that pay for better service get higher Internet speed, the public Internet would slow to a crawl.
My initial response is, “So?” Did these companies not pay for the infrastructure that provides these services? If they want to force the majority of their customers into the hands of a competitor, that’s their prerogative.
Following that, I remind myself that if this was going to happen, it would have already happened:
The truth is that if Verizon and AT&T wanted to cannibalize their broadband business with premium broadband services, they’d already be doing it. But they aren’t, because there hasn’t been a market for it.
The reality is that consumers are in control of what type of services are offered. If the public Internet can adequately deliver a service for free, then there’s no need to pay for it.
But if someone can provide a better service over a dedicated network and there are consumers willing to pay for it, then why shouldn’t it be offered? Isn’t that why some people subscribe to a 768Kbps broadband service for $15 a month, and others pay $100 for a 50Mbps service?
What’s more, even though Verizon is now selling TV service, it hasn’t blocked its broadband subscribers from accessing other video services, such as YouTube. In fact, it’s even added a YouTube widget to its FiosTV service so subscribers can access YouTube videos on their TVs.
The truth is that Verizon wants customers to buy its managed Internet TV service and its broadband service. If it doesn’t dedicate enough resources to offering a satisfactory broadband experience, customers will go to a competitor.
This is the free market at work, folks. This is how it’s supposed to be.
Which is one of the reasons I support the Verizon-Google proposal. It’s not a heavy handed book of regulations enforced by bureaucrats who are more interested in justifying their own employment then they are about providing the highest quality service for the money.
It’s two private companies addressing an issue and making a suggestion on how it should be handled. No, it isn’t perfect. But show me the bundle of government regulations that addresses problems perfectly. It doesn’t exist. Chances are the government solution would be worse, stifling innovation, expansion and availability.
Because they better understand the problem and all of its nuance, Google and Verizon are in a better position to create the solution that will benefit the consumer, Let them. If it isn’t good for the consumer, they will let them know.
