Sheep In Wolf's Clothing
Google and Verizon issued a joint proposal on net neutrality this week. It's terrible. The EFF breaks down why it's mostly bad (with surprising fair-mindedness). Ars Technica breaks down how Google is going back on everything it's said (and said strongly) from 2007 up until as recently as this last April.
The proposal is important because, despite the fact that it's just a proposal with no authority, it's the most serious attempt anyone has made to bridge the gap between net neutrality advocates (like Google....has been), and the telco industry. Well, actually, no, the FCC had issued some pretty awesome guidelines right after the awesome chairman Julius Genachowski came into office, over at OpenInternet.gov. But then the DC Circuit Court stripped the FCC of its authority to do anything with it.
You should probably listen to the EFF or other more thoughtful breakdowns, but I have two main issues with the proposal. It introduces the concept of "the public Internet", and then whatever other services ISPs want to offer on the side. Perhaps a "more secure" online banking service, or a "better Hulu" with faster connections and more content.
The second way is that even though it does introduce a ban on traffic interference and prioritization for wired networks, it leaves wireless networks completely untouched. It states, correctly, that there's more competition in the wireless sphere and that it's a "nascent" technology - and then says it deserves re-evaluation later.
Of course, it's the world of wireless Internet that, for all its competition, is currently the least open, and managed heavily by mobile carriers like Verizon, and companies like Apple, HP, and soon Microsoft (who all control their app markets top-down). Even the regulation of wired networks leaves wide open exceptions for "network management", and removes direct rulemaking authority from the FCC to enforce any of it.
The fact that there's a traffic prioritization ban on wired networks almost makes the whole thing worse, for setting a precedent at exactly how steep a cost that concession should come at - which is to say, it comes at the cost of everything else. Google has put up another post defending themselves, but it doesn't appear to be changing anyone's minds, mine included.
But unlike a lot of people sounding off around the Internet, I do not believe Google has "sold out" or is "evil" or never really cared about net neutrality to begin with. I think those are all pretty naive, and ignore Occam's razor besides. What seems far more likely to me is a combination of two things:
Google saw the FCC and its beautiful OpenInternet.gov get murdered by the courts, and have observed, as have we all, that Congress doesn't get it, and probably won't for another generation. With Obama's clout waning, and Democrats about to lose seats, I think we can probably all agree that the chance for an underdog netroots-powered victory over the evil telcos gets slimmer every year. Google decided the best thing they could do was compromise.
Google has a good business relationship with Verizon and figured that they stood a shot at demonstrating the ability for the industry to self-regulate, to fend off Congress from some sort of egregious intervention. Again, I think we can probably all agree that Congress' idea of net neutrality would be little better. Similar to how oil regulators got real tight with the employees of the oil companies they were supposed to regulate, Google's great relationship with Verizon made it difficult for them to stay as fiery about the issue as they had been in the past.
I honestly think Google believes that this proposal is the best hope for net neutrality that we have.
They are wrong.
Health care, financial reform - maybe those are worth the sausagemaking. But the global network for communications, publishing, and innovation that "interprets censorship as damage and routs around it"? No, we can't compromise on that. Not a compromise as steep as this. Our future as a civilization rides on this issue.
With the political and industrial climate we have, I don't have a great answer for how net neutrality can avoid losing, but it definitely involves at least two things. First, we need to tell Google that this isn't acceptable, and to go back to the negotiating table and try again.
And secondly, all the progressives I've met in DC who campaign for Democrats and work their asses off for health care and climate change, but who give me blank uninterested stares when I mention net neutrality, need to grow up and learn about the technology issues around them. It's embarrassing, and if this issue doesn't spread outside the technocrats, there's nothing we can do to stop the same old forces of greed and apathy from destroying what we built with our ideals.
I agree that this is a more important issue than a vast majority of people realize. Whether or not "our future as a civilization rides on it" depends I guess on how much credit you give to tales of slippery slopes (which, as you probably know from our many debates, is not negligible in my case at least). But if that's the case, I find it pretty astounding that you are complacent about compromises in health care and financial reform. I mean, I know Finnland declared broadband a human right and everything and I'm not laughing at them about it, but compared to the right to basic medical services and the right to work? I think you may be overstating the case a bit.
Floyd +1
Serious? Yea
Upper class problem? Definitely
And before you mention the digital divide read the stuff about improving general access to the internet which to the fair this proposal gets mostly right
I enjoyed reading this right up until the point where you indirectly suggested network neutrality was more important than health care and suggested that the future of human civilization depends on it. I'm not surprised you are getting blank stares with a pitch like that.
What I meant was that I am more amenable to the kinds of compromises made on health care and financial reform, than on the compromises offered on net neutrality.
In the case of health care and financial reform, the cause is to change the status quo and improve it; the level of compromise is about how much it can be improved. In the case of net neutrality, the cause is to preserve and codify the status quo, and the level of compromise is about how much worse it will get. Those are very different.
It is folly to suggest that health care -- domestic policy which concerns life, death, and bankruptcy -- is less important than net neutrality, and is not how I feel. But the incentives that govern the corporations who will physically build it and run it is so fundamental to how our world talks and writes and governs now, that I most definitely put them in the same tier of importance.
The relationship between government, industry, and the Internet may feel like an upper class problem here in the West, but for my friends who've worked on the ground in China to aid the Tibetan people, and have been identified by Chinese authorities through wireless cell phone records, it's a little more grounded.
For the masses of Africa, who are seeing <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100809161236.htm">~60% rates of cell phone adoption</a>, regulation around industry treatment of the wireless spectrum is of paramount importance, especially when smartphones soon become the norm. After the basics of food, water, electricity, and AIDS relief, I can't think of a more important issue in Africa than empowerment through technology. This is the reason I loved the One Laptop Per Child project, troubled as it was.
Internet policy in general, including net neutrality, is a populist issue; but it's not viewed that way here because of how rich we are, and because it tends to be an issue only the well-educated care about. There's a reason Secretary Clinton thought it worth <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012101699.html">pissing off China</a> by giving a great speech about "Internet freedom", a speech I was fortunate enough to see in person. This matters a lot more than simply making Silicon Valley a great place for the Twitters and Blippys of the world to get started. A strong public Internet, which in my view means having everyone contribute to one Internet, benefits the globe and civilization, now and well into the future.
Also, I promise I don't go around crusading on the people I meet in DC for not knowing what net neutrality is. :) But in aggregate, the consistent lack of exposure or caring about the issue here is alarming, and it gets me pretty fired up.
"OK Go on Net Neutrality":http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/27/AR2010082702131.html via the Washington Post (found on "reddit.com":http://www.reddit.com/r/Music/comments/d6n05/ok_go_on_net_neutrality_a_lesson_from_the_music/)