Failed Net Neutrality
Although the term net neutrality has been kicked around in government and the media for the past two or three years, it’s still not well understood. The first paragraph of a very long Wikipedia article offers this definition:
Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by Internet Service Providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and no restrictions on the modes of communication allowed.
Pretty dry stuff. Not much there to get worked up about; it’s basically the Internet that we have now. In recent days though, with the announcement of a joint proposal by Google and Verizon for addressing the issue, it’s becoming clearer how decisions made by corporations and government can affect the Internet of the future for users like you and me.
In her 2001 book Ruling the Waves, Debora Spar describes the four phases of a technology’s life: Innovation, commercialization, creative anarchy and rules.
During the innovation and commercialization phases, the very idea of governance seems absurd. What occurs during the phase of creative anarchy, though, is critical; for it is here that even the pioneers begin to realize the costs of chaos. And once they realize these costs, once they understand that a lack of rules can diminish their own financial prospects, they begin to lobby for what they once explicitly rejected.
With Google and Verizon’s proposed pact, the Internet has clearly moved into the Rules phase. While the agreement currently has no force of law, it could form the basis for industry’s further negotiations with the FCC, which recently withdrew from private talks with the two companies.
What’s in the agreement that caused Wired to declare Google “a carrier-humping, net neutrality surrender monkey“? The Guardian has a good summary:
On the surface, this agreement doesn’t look too nefarious. Verizon has agreed to respect the end-to-end principle on its wired networks and Google has reiterated its commitment to net neutrality. However, the proposal specifically excludes wireless internet services. The agreement also proposes that so-called “managed services” on the wired network – essentially fast lanes carved out of the bandwidth currently used by the internet – be exempt from any rules that govern the web.
Finally, and perhaps most troubling, Google and Verizon have suggested that industry-led advisery groups write the rules for what’s left of the internet. In matters of consumer protection and nondiscrimination, the FCC’s actions would be subject to approval by the very companies that the agency is meant to oversee.
It’s clear why this proposal is attractive to Google and Verizon. With net neutrality out of the picture, Verizon would be free to extract additional fees from content providers and users in exchange for access to the fast lanes. Google is large enough that it could afford to pay these fees, thereby assuring speedy delivery of its content and a competitive advantage.
I have not heard or read anyone, anywhere, arguing that this could be a good deal for consumers of Internet services. Commentators have been more frequently proclaiming the end of the Internet as we know it. In his post Internet, schmitnternet, Jeff Jarvis worries about the effects of an Internet divided between old, wireline services and anything mobile or new (the “Schminternet”).
So ol, grandpa internet may chug along giving us YouTube videos of flaming cats, but you want to get that while you’re out of your house? Well, that’s the nonnet. I can hear the customer “service” rep explaining this to us:
“Oh, no, sir. That’s not offered on the internet. That’s on the schminternet.”
You want something new? Anything created after 2010?
“Schminternet, sir.”
He even goes so far as to call it a Munich Pact, a comment which Josh Marshall calls, “a bit inflammatory but unfortunately pretty much captures it.”
Just as Czechoslovakia was not invited to its cutting apart, so were we not invited to Google and Verizon’s parlays.
But the internet is ours, not yours, Verizon and Google. This is why we need our Bill of Rights in Cyberspace.
It is critical that policies be created that regulate the Internet as a public resource, not on the terms of those who stand to profit. The agency charged with protecting the public interest in this matter is the FCC. Public comments are still being accepted on two proceedings: “In the Matter of Framework for Broadband Internet Service” (proceeding 10-127) and “In the Matter of Preserving the Open Internet Broadband Industry Practices” (proceeding 09-191). Comments can be entered online at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/hotdocket/list.
Google, Verizon and other telecom and large media companies are betting that the subject of net neutrality is too complicated and obscure to attract public attention. We need to let them and our representatives in government know that we are watching as events unfold and we are willing to demand our right to a single Internet that grants equal access to all who use it.
Net neutrality graphic by Gizmodo.
