Verizon and Google

"A Review of Verizon and Google's Net Neutrality Proposal"
By Cindy Cohn
Published August 10, 2010

“Efforts to protect net neutrality that involve government regulation have always faced one fundamental obstacle: the substantial danger that the regulators will cause more harm than good for the Internet.” This quote pretty much sums up my biggest fear regarding the passing of net neutrality legislation into law. It is my feeling that oftentimes when the government steps in to help solve a problem; they only help in creating another.

Government entities like the FCC worry me because unfortunately they have very little citizen oversight. If we give them the power to regulate the Internet, and they were to begin overstepping their boundaries, how then would we go about taking our Internet freedom back? As of right now the government has very little involvement in the Internet, but it is a very realistic possibility that this could soon change.

If net neutrality is ever enacted into law, the saying, “give them an inch, and they’ll take a mile,” will become very applicable to the future of our Internet situation. This past May when this article was written, “Google and Verizon proposed a new legislative framework for net neutrality that would give a narrow grant of power to the FCC to enforce neutrality within carefully specified parameters. Unfortunately, the same document that proposed this intriguing idea also included some really terrible ideas. It carved out exemptions from neutrality requirements for so-called ‘unlawful’ content, for wireless services, and for very vaguely-defined ‘additional online services.’ The definition of ‘reasonable network management’ is also problematically vague.” This occurrence demonstrates relatively well what I’m referring to in this instance when I say, “give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.”

The author, Cindy Cohn, breaks this proposal by Google and Verizon down a little bit further into four components so that it becomes somewhat easier to analyze.

According to Cohn, the first component that this plan promotes is “Limited FCC Jurisdiction,” which she considers to be “Good.” In my opinion this is not “Good.” I suppose limitation to the FCC is a good thing, but the fact that they have limitations at all means that they have some sort of power, which I vehemently object to. Like I’ve mentioned above, the FCC and their lack of oversight causes me concern, and I’d never just willingly hand any of my freedoms over to them (that they don’t already have I guess).

The second component in the proposal by Google and Verizon is “Standard-setting bodies,” which Cohn considers to be “Interesting.” It suggests that “reasonable network management” should be “consistent with the technical requirements, standards or best practices adopted by an independent, widely recognized Internet community governance initiative or standard-setting organization.” Again, I do not hold enough trust and confidence in the FCC that I would ever feel comfortable just leaving these important decisions up to them to determine who exactly would sever on the standard-setting board, or Internet community governance initiative. Yes, this proposal implements rules, but the rules are so subjective, there is no telling what they will come to be interpreted as in the future, and from whom they will be interpreted.

The third component of Verizon and Google’s proposal is “Reasonable Network management, Additional Online Services,” which Cohn perceives as “Troubling.” I agree with this assumption and her reasoning. “The definition of ‘reasonable network management’ needs to be clarified and refined; not to mention, the language on what makes some network management ‘reasonable’ is extremely unclear.”

The fourth component is “’Lawful’ Content and Wireless Exclusions,” which Cohn has coined as a “failure.” “The proposal essentially ignores some of the key problems that EFF and others have had with previous network neutrality proposals. These loopholes could undermine the goals of neutrality, or lead to unanticipated and regrettable outcomes.”

In my opinion, this proposal cooked up by Google and Verizon has too many gray areas. Net neutrality is the attempt to regulate Internet discrimination, even though no discrimination currently exists. They are trying to implement rules where no rules are necessary. The author of this article, Cindy Cohn, is a supporter of net neutrality, but even she found several weak areas within the proposal. If these regulation are ever actually implemented the freedom of the Internet that we know today will no longer exist.