[ NNSquad ] Re: Civility, Neutrality, and Google

From the GPPB:

"MYTH: This proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless.

FACT: Itâs true that Google previously has advocated for certain openness safeguards to be applied in a similar fashion to what would be applied to wireline services. However, in the spirit of compromise, we have agreed to a proposal that allows this market to remain free from regulation for now, while Congress keeps a watchful eye."

Translation:

It's not a "myth" if it's true.

Congress can't even keep a watchful eye on the legislation they're passing (YouTube) or where our tax money goes (YouTube). So, how can they be trusted to keep a watchful eye on the future of the Internet? If Network Neutrality, as a principle, cannot be applied broadly to every mechanism of delivery or access to the Internet, then there is no neutrality at all.

If Verizon, Qwest, or AT&T impede the ability of DSL subscribers to utilize Skype rather than the phone line, which itself provides long-distance connectivity, they have adopted the "Google-Verizon" model of wireless infrastructure for the wired infrastructure. Why shouldn't they? And why wouldn't we expect their users to be in the same uproar we find among the critics of this "new deal"?

Now, if these same providers instead impacted the entire scope of Internet connectivity in favor of their separately channelized content, have they violated "Network Neutrality"? If "Network Neutrality" applies only to "the Internet", then in essence no, they have not. Because all Internet content, at that point, will suffer equally. If they make a side deal with Skype to piggyback upon their "favored" channel using a "specialized" implementation of the service, have they violated "Network Neutrality"? Again, if the "Network" is a simple moniker for "the Internet" then no, they have not. Because, again, the "Internet" suffers equally--even those who use Skype on the channelized Internet.

So, what is the "Network" we all want to be "Neutral"? That is at the heart of the clamor, here. It's in our nature to eschew anti-competitive behavior, and there is no greater equalizer to the playing field than the concept of "neutral" states. We don't want the "Internet" to be neutral--it was already designed that way. We want Verizon to be neutral. We want Comcast to be neutral. We don't want channelized services of any form. This is what "Network Neutrality" is all about. We want the access providers to provide us with equal access to all services. And we damn, and blast Google for being intrepid in the well-trodden frontier of favoritism, most fervently so because we expected them to be staunch hold-outs in this arena.

-David Berry

Message: 9

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:59:19 -0700
From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com>
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Civility, Neutrality, and Google
To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org
Message-ID: <20100812225919.GC13126@vortex.com" href="mailto:20100812225919.GC13126@vortex.com">20100812225919.GC13126@vortex.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Civility, Neutrality, and Google

http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000743.html

Greetings. It's now four days since Google and Verizon published
their joint policy proposal for an open Internet
( http://bit.ly/cpO0bU [Google Public Policy Blog] ). Today, Google
posted an additional document, addressing what they view as the
misconceptions being promulgated in various negative reactions to the
plan ( http://bit.ly/aQKmQV [Google Public Policy Blog] ).

I am extremely disappointed.

However, my disappointment is not with Google, nor Verizon. I applaud
the willingness of both firms to put forth their public proposal.

Rather, I am disappointed -- no, that's not a strong enough word --
I'm mortified -- by the level of vitriol, obnoxiousness, obscenity,
and emotionally-laden, hyperbole-saturated rhetoric that is
characterizing many of the negative responses to the proposal.

Most of this abuse appears to be heaped on Google, not Verizon --
perhaps reflecting the fact that most pro-Net-Neutrality groups have
not held ISPs in particularly high esteem to begin with.

So Google is attracting the lion's share of attacks related to
displeasure over the proposal. Calls of "They sold us out!" --
"They've gone evil!" -- "Google joins the Dark Side" -- and so on --
are mild compared to various of the obscenity-laced tirades that have
been appearing in some venues.

I'm about as solid a proponent of Net Neutrality and Open Internet
concepts as you'll find anywhere. I like some aspects of the
Google/Verizon proposal, but I do have significant disagreements with
aspects of the plan, particularly relating to elements associated with
the suggested handling of wireless broadband and new differentiated
online services.

As I noted a couple of days ago ( http://bit.ly/9DXq69 [Lauren's Blog] ),
it's clear that the Google/Verizon proposal -- and that's all it
is -- concepts for consideration -- is largely the result of completely
understandable, prolonged frustration at the dangerously vacuous
status quo in the U.S. Internet broadband universe.

As far as I'm concerned, this policy debate -- regardless of where you
personally stand regarding the specific issues themselves -- is well
served by straightforward public proposals like the one from Google
and Verizon. The reasoned discussions that such proposals can foster
are likely to be among the most important key components of any real,
positive progress on these crucial matters.

But if the reward for publicly putting forth such concepts in good
faith is mostly characterized by malevolent histrionic reactions --
rather than logical consideration of actual technical and policy
effects -- we risk relegating broadband, Internet policies to the same
virulent cesspool of political gamesmanship that has paralyzed the
U.S. on other important issues ranging from immigration to civil
liberties.

We must approach these matters with our brains, not our hormones --
with civility, not vulgarity. The former approaches may feel
viscerally satisfying for a short time -- but they can generally be
depended upon not to lead us toward solutions, but rather to march us
right off the cliff.

--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com)
http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
Co-Founder, PFIR (People For Internet Responsibility): http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, NNSquad (Network Neutrality Squad): http://www.nnsquad.org
Founder, GCTIP (Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance):
http://www.gctip.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
Google Buzz: http://bit.ly/lauren-buzz

End of nnsquad Digest, Vol 4, Issue 263
***************************************