RSS
Google, Verizon, and Net Neutrality
Attempting to understand the nuance of “net neutrality“—the idea that Internet access and content should remain free of government or corporate control—is a tall order. It requires the observational skills, experience, and understanding of an anthropologist coupled with the book-smarts of a seasoned lawyer.
Tragically, most of us are neither of these things (myself included). And yet, anyone who spends a great deal of time dealing with the Internet (i.e., most of us) has a great stake in the outcome(s) of the debate surrounding the issue.
After all, the very definition of digital space and the rights of those that traverse it are at stake.
Recently, Google and Verizon released a short list of legislative recommendations summarizing their contemporary views on the subject. These include basic consumer-protections, transparency and non-discriminatory requirements, establishment of network management standards, and more.
The general reaction has been…hyperbolic. Articles with eye-popping headlines like “Google Goes Evil,” ”Google-Verizon pact, makes BP look good,” etc. have been fairly commonplace throughout the web. I would expect this kind of thing from HuffPo, of course, but I’ve read plenty of forum threads on the subject that haven’t been terribly inspired as well. I’ve seen one too many posts along the lines of “This could be the end of the internet as we know it!”
Fortunately, a few more level-headed responses have emerged. The EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation), an internet-oriented civil liberties group, has done a series of more detailed analyses on the recommendations. Their viewpoints focus more on the troubling vagaries, such as the nebulous concept of “network management standards” and consequences of “lawful content,” along with the highly conspicuous lack of standards for wireless networks (Google and Verizon suggest that for now, only the transparency standard should apply given the current dynamism of the technology/content).
I still think they may be a bit too troubled by the concepts they deem overly vague, as law is full of such language (e.g., the concept of “probable cause”) and we just sort of have to live with it. Still, I’m glad that a reasoned cautionary body like the EFF exists to counteract the natural flaw inherent in ANY legislation recommended by corporate entities. After all, Google and Verizon are ultimately self-interested.
Our government has a strong tendency to look for private sector “expertise” when dealing with complex issues like net neutrality. While this often generates problems, I find it understandable. Imagine you’re an elected official and are expected to formulate an opinion on net neutrality. Where do you look? To people you perceive have a great deal of knowledge regarding the Internet, of course: CEO’s of Google and Verizon, etc. This principle is applied across the board, particularly with executive branch appointees (just look at Henry Paulson‘s credentials before he became Bush’s second treasury secretary).
Even though I find the Google/Verizon recommendations perhaps more innocuous than most; I still think it’s fortunate that some very smart people out there are attempting to provide an alternative source of information. For every evil king, there tends to be a Robin Hood.
Frankly, it could be a lot worse. At least they have a non-discrimination requirement for land-line broadband in there. That’s essential to the very basis of net neutrality. Now if only they could apply it to large-scale wireless networks as well….
What do you think? Is this the end of the Internet as we know it?
And how can we move towards a more productive debate?
Image credit: Jason Walton
Categories Digital Media
Twitter
LinkedIn
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Tamsen McMahon and Brandon C. Walsh, Sametz Blackstone. Sametz Blackstone said: Google, Verizon, and Net Neutrality http://cot.ag/cFiTbG [...]