MikePadgett.com

Net neutrality: the Google-Verizon proposal versus freedom and choice

— Notes on the recent Google-Verizon proposals for safeguarding net neutrality.”

I was disappointed to learn that Google had a hand in recent proposals on Internet neutrality.

Google-Verizon proposals: telling tall tales

These proposals purport to underwrite the future of an open internet. To quote the BBC story on the subject:

“The set of seven proposals guarantee equal access to the internet and call for the prohibition of wired broadband providers from discriminating between different kinds of internet traffic to ensure that no-one can pay to have their traffic treated more favourably.”

Ostensibly it all sounds laudable, but given that only wired providers would be affected, it’s only one side of the coin. The future, we are often reminded, is wireless and between them Google and Verizon have everything to gain as the market continues to grow.

56% of Americans have accessed the Internet wirelessly

- Pew Internet & American Life Project (2009) [Source]

I sincerely hope that, with these “compromise proposals” as it calls them, Google has backed a loser.

Self-interest and the public interest

According to the blog post above, Google aimed for these two goals:

1. Users should choose what content, applications, or devices they use, since openness has been central to the explosive innovation that has made the Internet a transformative medium.
2. America must continue to encourage both investment and innovation to support the underlying broadband infrastructure; it is imperative for our global competitiveness.

The only choice guaranteed by the first goal, given the content of the proposal, is Hobson’s choice. Even if access to everything is open, a two-speed wireless internet will dissuade users from consuming information and applications not already sanctioned by wireless providers and their online partners.

The ‘explosive innovation’ of which Google speaks is the fruit of unrestricted choice based on a level playing field of user access, whatever the connection.

Then there’s the second goal. Despite all the WTO-encouraged talk of stamping out protectionism, these proposals seek to bolster American interests in a global economy.

These are words designed to sound sweet to American regulators burned by the Comcast case, the American public whose jobs are threatened by cheap labour, cheap imports and massive offshoring and to Google and Verizon shareholders everywhere, who will no doubt be salivating in anticipation.

Corporations and public policy

We have reached a point in time at which corporations can now define public policy by the front door. Where once lobbyists had to ply their trade in hidden corridors, today the democracy of money and influence is out and proud.

The Apples, the Microsofts and now the Googles of this world are no longer content with telling us what to buy.

These proposals on the future of the internet show us that pervasive product marketing is no longer enough. A corporation now needs to be willing enough to dictate our future, our moral principles and how we should live.