Now why would I say that? Google and Verizon announced yesterday (August 9, 2010) their joint statement on “an Open Internet.” [Verizon] [Google]
I can read the statement two ways.
First, they propose an Open Internet [1. Remember that the Internet is the underlying transport that supports email, web, video and many other services, so it’s not just web sites that we’re talking about here.] with all traffic being carried with the same priority regardless of content or purpose. That’s good, and it’s what we want. And if you’re just thinking about the next few years, this is all well and good.
At the same time, they propose that services that might be developed in the future not be subject to neutrality rules, and that they may be offered as premium services.
Therefore, our proposal would allow broadband providers to offer additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services (such as Verizon’s FIOS TV) offered today. This means that broadband providers can work with other players to develop new services.
This means that services that would be quite distinct from what we know as Internet services today could be offered for a price and prioritized, with access being limited in any way the developer wishes to. Naïvely, I’d say this looks fine on the surface of it because we’d still have the Internet to rely on.
Um…but, putting my analytical hat on, I’d say companies could develop these kinds of services and then “neglect” the traditional Internet, or essentially make the Internet look so bad by comparison (through marketing and promotion of new services), or argue that it’s such a cost sink that it would be left behind in favor of the new services. Services that we’d all have to pay more for[2. Kind of like Apple has (perhaps unintentionally) crippled the old iPhone 3G (most of which are less than a year old) by loading a new operating system onto the phone that makes it function poorly, suggesting that maybe they want you to “buy a new phone.” This may have been accidental, but it might as well have been intentional since it put thousands of phones into a limbo land where they barely function any more. Read about unusable iPhone 3G’s and why this is so perplexing for iPhone users]. (Like data on our mobile phones, which you’d think would be cheap by now, but seems to be getting more and more expensive all the time?) The “Internet” could end up frozen in time, carrying only the services it carries now, and eventually choked off through neglect.
So, I see the Verizon-Google proposal as trying to appear to satisfy everyone, but I do not think it really serves the ideal of open communication into the unending future—it just proposes neutrality for the old-fashioned Internet as long as it continues to exist, and after that it becomes just another economic game. What would be far more valuable would be a clear statement that values a level playing field for human communication, which is what the Internet ideally serves.
Jim, I remember, more than a decade ago, a telco put a special high speed network in place in Sydney for business (with it’s own tariff, of course). A walled garden secure. It foundered, as there wasn’t a business model for it; no special value was available. Similarly, I was contacted by a guy wanting to build a high capacity mobile network business for downtowns, and wondered what the killer business app was.
I agree that they’ll want to do it, and it’s a concern, but the vibrancy of new innovations coming from nowhere makes the internet a compelling place to keep playing.
Now, if Google pulled, say, their location services off the net there might be some problem, but the backlash might be phenomenal.
So, it *is* a worry, but this proposal for ‘special services’ isn’t as big a concern to me as dissecting out the internet into separate tiers.
Clark, thanks for the very interesting thought. Citizen action might the Internet in the future (though it hasn’t exactly saved net neutrality yet).
So if Verizon threatens to suck our business off into paying media, and if the Internet comes under threat of being killed off, I will give you a ping and expect you to grab your placards and posters and come out onto the streets to protest with me. See you on the front lines! 😉
I agree that we need to watch what is happening with Net Neutrality very closely. Like you point out, there are so many services that we all use that are related to it.
I fear the average person has no idea what the big deal is and never gives it a thought.
I think citizen action may be the only way to keep it free. Those in government usually have no idea what is going on or what it is (although they frequently like to claim that they had a major part in the development of the internet- aka Al Gore’s invention). It can be quite clear when they talk (as with most things they say) that they are not familiar with the issues other than what some large lobbyist or campaign donor tells them. Even the traditional media look at the online world as something they fear (evidenced by their disdain for bloggers who often beat them to a story).
It’s going to be up to us as bloggers an individuals to keep this freedom we currently have. It may just take those placards and posters.