Google used to support the idea of true network neutrality for the internet—the idea that all traffic on the network is treated equally, neutrally, with no priority given to any kind of traffic over another and no priority given to any creator’s traffic over another. But no more. This week Google and Verizon announced they have reached terms on digital traffic management—a system whereby some traffic on the internet is favored over other traffic; the antithesis of true network neutrality, the principal upon which the internet was founded.
Both companies for days vehemently denied any such agreement existed. Typical for Verizon, but especially evil for Google. Three days after announcing the agreement, Google tried to walk back the agreement using an especially creepy corporate double-speak without really walking it back. This move was almost universally seen for what it was: Despicable corporate maneuvering.
America is already far behind the rest of the developed worked with regard to broadband speeds. Residents of most other developed countries have a broad choice between internet service providers offering much faster and much less expensive connectivity than that available in the US. In the US, your choice is generally between the cable company and the telephone company. You may, as I do, purchase internet connectivity from an independent provider, but the telephone company provides the connection between here and there.
Dan Gillmor, writing for Salon, offers up the spectre of not just a tiered network, but parallel networks—one for the entertainment cartel and advanced services and one for the rest of us. Eliot Van Buskirk, writing for Wired, also tills this fertile ground. Gillmor also articulately decries the telivisionization of the internet:
“I’ve been worried for years that the game was on to turn the carrier-controlled internet into just another version of television. Maybe the carriers won’t get away with that.”
The US’s flavor of capitalism—as warped as it has become—is based on the principle of laissez-faire market competition. Except we don’t really believe that. Virtually every other developed country requires the incumbent broadband providers to open their networks to their competitors. But not in the US. The Google-Verizon pact argues network neutrality on the wireless internet is unnecessary because there’s sufficient competition. The two giant corporations go on to argue that network neutrality is only necessary on the current wired internet; “advanced services” will likely enjoy rich competition. Also exempted from any network neutrality requirements are these “advanced services” and “unlawful content.” Please. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Cindy Cohn notes in her analysis, these terms are overly vague, as is the definition of “reasonable network management.”
Even the Google-Verizon pact’s stance on network neutrality for the current wired internet is misguided. The document clearly states that different content providers cannot be discriminated against:
“Importantly, this new nondiscrimination principle includes a presumption against prioritization of Internet traffic - including paid prioritization. So, in addition to not blocking or degrading of Internet content and applications, wireline broadband providers also could not favor particular Internet traffic over other traffic.”
But Google and Verizon remain silent on favoring some types of content over others. And Eric Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, has repeatedly stated (most recently in this Washington Post op-ed) that certain types of content—specifically streamed video—should be given priority over other types of content. And even though the pact presumes non-discrimination of wired-line internet traffic, Verizon and Google’s proposal allows for rebuttal of the presumption.
Here’s a thought: How about true network neutrality and true competition in the US? What a concept. And while we’re at it, let’s throw in symmetric (or nearly so) connectivity—where my upload (production) speed is just as fast as my download (consumption) speed.
The New York Times published a fairly exhaustive package on the issue. As Marvin Ammori observes, “Competition and democratic debate in the 21st century depend on nondiscrimination.” Nondiscrimination is what governed access to the US’s railroads and the principle was extended to telecommunications with the Communications Act of 1934. Until President George W. Bush deregulated broadband; then all bets were off and Google sold us out.
What’s central to remember about the internet—that the incumbent providers and apparently Google conveniently forget—is that innovation happens at the edges; when and where users decide how best to use the network. That innovation will be crushed or strangled—choose your metaphor—as the incumbent providers (and now Google) spend “millions lobbying to turn the Internet into a pay-for-play service to suck profits out of (or, ‘partner with’) online services and venture investors that compete with the carriers and their select partners,” as Ammori notes.
Lawrence Lessig reports that the Obama administration is “pressuring, or more diplomatically, ‘signaling’ the FCC to go slow on Barack Obama’s promise to protect ‘network neutrality.’” Lessig attributes this move to the “huge political costs” and Washington’s continuing “deregulatory crusade.” He goes on to call policymakers “oblivious and arrogant,” suggesting they read Barbara van Schewick’s Internet Architecture and Innovation.
David Gelernter, one of the smartest people on the planet, argues against network neutrality: “If a corporation is rich enough to buy faster service for its customers, why shouldn’t it use its money that way instead of buying new yachts for the junior vice presidents?” That’s almost plausible until he extends the metaphor by arguing that a rich airline should be allowed to buy extra gates at the airport so “it can hire more clerks and make its check-in lines shorter.” That’s precisely what happened here in the Twin Cities. Northwest Airlines was allowed to buy extra gates (mostly to keep out competitors) and those of us living here paid a 40% premium in higher airfares for the privilege. No thanks. Oh, and I can’t find the reference on that hub airfare premium because all of the ticketing scams have gamed the Google. Yay Google. Again.
Even Jim Harper from the libertarian Cato Insitute understands the importance of neutrality (or non-discrimination; take your pick), calling the Verizon-Google pact a clear-cut case of regulatory capture: When “a government agency falls under the control of the business sector it is supposed to regulate.” His notion that “Verizon, Google, and other industry players can’t be refused the First Amendment right to petition the government….” is terribly misguided, in a typically libertarian way. Corporate personhood is one of the biggest mistakes the US Supreme Court ever made, but that’s for another article.
Jonathan Zittrain points to the evolution of peering arrangements between service providers, where providers agree to exchange each other’s traffic without exchanging money. Peering arrangements have gotten quite complicated and are often secret nowadays; they’ll only get more complicated, more secretive, and a lot of money will change hands between large, well-funded creators and service providers if the Verizon-Google pact is allowed. All at the expense of startups, intentionally small creators, and individual customers of the service providers.
So, why did Google reverse its position on network neutrality (and not doing evil; even if you disagree with the principle of network neutrality, surely you find Google’s outright lie about the agreement evil)? Ryan Single, writing for Wired, provides the beginnings of an answer: Market share for Android, Google’s open-source operating system for mobile devices. Widespread adoption of Android in the mobile market would help Google diversify its revenue stream beyond search ads. We’re at risk of losing the internet because of a smartyphone OS.
0 responses. Comments closed for this article.