Is this what Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg metaphorically whispered into the Google founder’s ear? I’m still reeling from the Google-Verizon non-aggression pact and what it will mean for a competitive and open Internet. Some have pointed out that the proposal is merely a regurgitation of the FCC’s six freedoms for an open Internet.
True, but up to a point.
The sacred non-discrimination freedom is actually qualified in the proposal. ISPs will be able to discriminate by prioritizing packets if they decide so —”the presumption [of non-discrimination] can be rebutted.” This is one of the reasons that FCC wants to reclassify wired broadband under Title II rules for common carriers, where this principle would be protected by statute: “… unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications…”
Leaving aside some other big loopholes in this proposal (see the “Advanced Services” exception), what’s shocking is the complete about-face that Google has made. Hat tip to Ars Technica’s Mat Lasar for following the paper trail.
From Google’s ex-parte letter to the FCC, June 15, 2007:
Unfortunately incumbents operating in today’s concentrated broadband market have the incentives and ability to discriminate against third party applications and content providers. Economic analysis and real-world experience also challenge the prevailing notion that more competitive markets invariably lead to open markets.
Within the context of the network neutrality debate, the FCC should endeavor to clarify those points of agreement between the parties. Most agree that prohibited practices include blocking/impairing/degrading Internet traffic, and the unilateral imposition of terminating charges on Web companies. Most also agree that permitted practices include reasonable network management and differential, but not discriminatory, business practices. Packet prioritization remains the key point of contention between the parties. Because this practice creates a host of economic, technical, and policy problems, the Commission should at minimum prohibit its more discriminatory forms.
The contrast between this stern lecture on prioritization from Google and its new expansive view, especially the no-prioritization zone spelled out in the Advanced Services bulletpoint, is so dramatic that you begin to get a sense that the “let’s be a monopoly” imperial troopers won out over the older “do no evil” renegades.
Perhaps some of the same players who thought Google should stay in China?
Related articles by Zemanta
- A paper trail of betrayal: Google’s net neutrality collapse (arstechnica.com)
- What the Google-Verizon proposal really says (news.cnet.com)
- Section 202 (law.cornell.edu)
- A Heated Debate at the Top (wsj.com)
- FCC’s open Internet freedoms (fcc.gov)
