Commentary

Google Says Any Neutrality Laws Better Than Nothing -- But Not So

Google's attempt to defend its neutrality pact with Verizon is being met with widespread skepticism -- and with good reason.

Google's telecom counsel Richard Whitt argues in a blog post that some neutrality regulations -- any regulations -- would be better than nothing, which is what we have now. But Whitt is wrong. New laws that explicitly allow broadband providers to charge companies for faster carriage -- which Google and Verizon are proposing -- would be worse for consumers and entrepreneurs than the status quo.

First, it's not true that consumers currently lack all protection from Internet service providers' whims. For one thing, subscribers still have their contracts with ISPs -- and companies that violate those contracts by, say, preventing users from using lawful applications, can face lawsuits, as occurred when Comcast throttled peer-to-peer traffic. Secondly, the Federal Trade Commission appears to have the power to intervene if ISPs falsely advertise their services.

And, while the Federal Communications Commission currently lacks authority to enforce neutrality rules, that situation might soon change. The FCC is currently considering reclassifying broadband access as a telecommunications service, in which case the agency could apply some common carrier rules to broadband providers. Additionally, Congress can pass new laws.

As long as the FCC and Congress are even mulling new laws, Internet service providers seem to have an incentive to refrain from degrading or prioritizing certain content. But the Google-Verizon proposal gives ISPs a big incentive to start discriminating.

The companies propose that ISPs shouldn't degrade or prioritize traffic, but with one big exception: Google and Verizon would allow special fast lanes for managed services. While that term isn't defined, Google and Verizon say that telemedicine, gaming or entertainment are examples.

Google can argue that the proposal sets a floor, not a ceiling. But, if legislators adopt the Google-Verizon vision, it seems likely that ISPs would devote their efforts to figuring out how to forge the deals that will allow them to charge more for faster service.

That's not to say that services like telemedicine couldn't lawfully receive priority treatment, but those services should be the exception, not the rule. The Electronic Frontier Foundation recently proposed that companies offering services that require a fast lane could petition the FCC to waive neutrality rules. That makes a lot more sense than a proposal to exempt vague and undefined special services from non-discrimination rules.

1 comment about "Google Says Any Neutrality Laws Better Than Nothing -- But Not So ".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Gabrielle Jackson from Conversis, August 16, 2010 at 5:02 a.m.

    Thanks for this. I've been struggling to understand what all this means, and I think this is a clear and concise explanation.

Next story loading loading..