Google, Verizon and the free, open Web

On Aug. 9, Google and Verizon publicly announced a joint policy proposal for the consideration of Congress as an attempt to preserve "network neutrality" in the United States. This has caused a bit of a scuffle on the Internet, as staunch supporters of net neutrality are accusing Google of "backing down" from its traditional pro-free-Internet stance to appease Internet providers like Verizon and make a quick buck.

For those who don't know, net neutrality is a good thing. If there was a spectrum of Internet, ranging from completely free and open service to the kind available in China, net neutrality would be somewhere in the middle (one might even say it's at a neutral position). The United States is currently relatively neutral on the Internet, controlling access to illegal content like child pornography but otherwise leading a "hands-off" approach to public Internet access. However, a recent ruling in a court case found that the FCC does not have any authority to tell Internet service providers (ISP) what to do, making it very clear that the current neutral state of the Internet is at risk.

Without any single body having authority over the United States Internet, content providers may be free to filter sites that are not illegal, censoring the Internet as they see fit. Providers like Comcast could also start prioritizing content provided by certain business partners, meaning that unless companies pay an extra fee their websites might load slower, if at all.

It's obvious that the FCC, or some new board, needs to be given authority to protect consumers from the interests of ISPs; the only question now is how to go about establishing this authority and regulating it so that corruption doesn't make matters worse. Is the Google/Verizon proposal the right approach? I submit that it is not, if for no other reason than that the regulations proposed by Verizon and Google give a free pass to wireless Internet; that is, all of the consumer protections that were proposed only affect wired services like Comcast's high speed Internet, completely ignoring Internet provided by companies like, say, Verizon Wireless.

The joint proposal gives the FCC the necessary authority to protect the Internet, but has enough gaps and exceptions that the FCC would be largely useless in actually enforcing that authority. It's a good start at least, with Google and Verizon both encouraging feedback as well as maintaining that their proposal is just a framework, hoping legislators will fill in the necessary gaps to create a more acceptable solution. They are the only ones who have stepped up to the plate with suggestions, at any rate, excepting of course the FCC. However, I don't particularly enjoy the idea of the FCC being able to supervise itself.