Net neutrality has been called the “free market issue” of the Internet. It also represents an issue with a lot of discussion and a few rational solutions. Proponents of this issue (e.g., Google) who want all bits of data to be given equal weight are weary of the agencies that could regulate such protection. Allowing the FCC, FTC or some hybrid of both commission could be seen by some as a foothold in allowing government regulation of the Internet. Allowing the industry to regulate themselves would lack consumer protection needed to protect the equality of bites. Other solutions require the support of any significant shareholder in the issue.
Wireless carriers (e.g., Verizon) and Internet service providers have claimed that the Internet will be overwhelmed sooner rather than later. The claims have included running out of bandwidth, running out of IP addresses, more content than the network can handle and a rapid increase of users of the Internet over the past few years. From this corner, there has only been one solution; a tiered system of Internet service. This system would allow only those who paid the Premium level of service to have their bits to pass freely. Those who didn’t could have their bandwidth slowed down at the discretion of the Internet service providers.
Last week, Verizon and Google came together to create a policy compromise. If the wireless carriers and Internet service providers could create a tiered system for wireless Internet service, the ISPs would allow wireline Internet bits to move freely through the system. While the compromise isn’t official, it seems that this policy will act as the de facto structure to any future legislative discussion of net neutrality.
Some of the critical questions have already been asked:
What’s in it for Google?
Is Verizon considered the voice of the wireless industry?
More importantly, is Google the voice of the consumer in this issue?
Google may be focusing on their Android system in this policy instead of their general consumer services. This focus is entirely within the scope of the United States and its citizens. The scary point is the broader impact of this policy is its impact outside of the United States. Therefore the question that I pose is how will this policy impact communication systems that were not formed in the “free market” system? Based on this, couldn’t the government also decide to throttle bandwidth as a right of government control, as the carrier has the right to throttle service in the United States?
The second major question seems to be why is the compromise occurring now. Is it possible that newer technologies will allow for higher speed, more bandwidth, and better technology to take advantage of this network? If we had this agreement ten years ago, would it not seem likely that broadband service would be more expensive; therefore fewer consumers would use it, and we would not have the economic system we have today (i.e., virtual, “cash-less”). So, will this agreement have some ripples in the future of the Internet, more likely than not yes?
