by Charing Ball
Could the Google and Verizon deal be the end of the Golden Age of the Internet as we know it? I’m not quite sure but just in case, I’m going to watch all the free streaming movies, download all my favorite music torrents and say my tearful goodbyes to my much loved blogs – just to be on the safe side.
Late last week, the Internet was at a fevered pitch over published reports on a supposed agreement transpiring between Google and Verizon, which would allow ISPs to offer premium content bundles over an unspecified global network. According to these reports, the premium bundles would give priority to ISPs who are willing to pay for the privilege of higher speeds and better access to the consumers.
The alleged deal has both the net neutrality advocates and common online users alike worried that this would equate to a two-tier Internet, giving better services and innovative applications to those who could afford to pay while the rest of us are stuck in the digital ghetto.
However, what Google and Verizon actually agreed upon was a proposed compromise on how the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should frame legislature around the Internet, while preserving net neutrality. This agreement was made public on Monday and delivered to the Commission earlier Tuesday morning for review.
The telecommunications giants also released a joint public statement on of all things, a blog post, which outlined how the content provider and a broadband internet provider could work together to not only “protect the future openness of the Internet” but also “encourage the rapid deployment of broadband.
In their statement, both corporations laid out a seven-point plan on what openness on the Internet should actually look like including instituting non-discriminating policies on lawful content, regardless if its paid for or not; pushing for innovation through broadband providers to offer additional services to users including games and smart grids; closer supervision on the part of the Government Accountability Office; and a $2 million “bad actor” fines for broadband providers violators, who violate rule Number One of fight club…um, I mean, the comprised “openness” policy.
While not necessarily the death nail to the Internet, this compromise and its implications should be watched closely by Net Neutrality advocates and consumers alike. For one, this proposed framework policy does not offer the same protection for the wireless broadband marketplaces. As stated in their joint statement, both Google and Verizon suggest that wireless broadband technology, such as smart phones, are too new to be held to the same standards as traditional broadband. This exclusion has the potential to create a loophole to be the two-tier system, which in essence, would violate their own agreed upon non-discrimination policy.
And the fact that Google and Verizon are advising the FCC on how it should “frame legislature” is problematic and disturbing in and of itself. Excuse me if I’m mistaken, but legislation is a function of Congress and certainly not two telecommunication juggernauts, which certainly have something to gain by drafting the rules in their interest. By allowing Google and Verizon to draft the rules, it’s like asking the wolves to guard the hen house.
But as suspect as the Google/Verizon pact remains, it also has the potential to push the conversation of Net Neutrality forward and force Congress as well as the general public to recognize why net neutrality is not only necessary but important. The beauty of what has been the Internet has been that the information we upload, whether it be video, audio or text, would be treated openly and equally, leaving the decision to the consumer to gauge what is and what is not relevant.
This diversity in content should really hit home with women, minorities and the poor communities, who have seen their voices marginalized by mainstream media outlets. Thanks in part to the Internet these once-disenfranchised voices now have access to a broad audience and are free to socialize, be educated, build alliances and create wealth — and can do so with as little as a computer and basic Internet service.
Without neutrality on the Internet, broadband providers and major content providers would be free to give greater access to content providers, whom could afford to pay more or whom they agreed with (i.e. Comcast), much in the same way that cable television providers treats paid-television. And we all know how bad cable and satellite TV is, right?
The jury is still out on what effect this compromise would have on shaping the future of the Internet but FCC Commissioner Michael Commissioner Michael Copps seems to be concerned and has issued a statement imploring his agency to move on a decision that would put the interests of consumers in front of the interests of giant corporations. And if Copps is concerned, than we might want to remain a little concern too.
