Shop Notes

All Internet is equal -- except when it's not

Posted: Aug. 11, 2010 | Tags: broadband, FCC, Federal Communication Commission, Google, Verizon

Any agreement between business foes Verizon Communications Inc. and Google Inc. should raise a red flag for those concerned with the public interest.

In matters regarding information technology, the public is best served when there are competitors tearing at one another’s throats. The Federal Communications Commission and Congress, unfortunately, act more as protectors of the free flow of commerce than as countervailing influences against corporate power.

So it is with suspicion that we should view the legislative framework announced Tuesday by the two corporate superpowers. Two items in particular raise immediate concern.

First, Google has given up on the concept of network neutrality when it comes to wireless service. Network neutrality is the idea that all Internet traffic should be treated equally.

Cell phone companies won’t move off that point. They argue that there is simply not enough room on wireless networks to allow ungoverned usage – there is only so much radio spectrum to go around, after all.

The second area of concern is the position on wireline broadband service.

Google, which relies on network owners like Verizon to deliver its ads, has been the most high-profile proponent of network neutrality principles while companies like Verizon, AT&T Inc. and Comcast Corp. have fought against them.

The companies say that under the framework, wireline broadband providers will not be able to “discriminate against or prioritize lawful Internet content.” That includes “paid prioritization.” This goes straight to the heart of network neutrality issue – a promise that there will not be a super-fast Internet for rich corporations and a pokey, slow Internet for the rest of us.

But only a few paragraphs later, the framework appears to contradict itself.

It says broadband providers will be allowed to offer “additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services” as long as they are not designed to “circumvent the rules.” What, exactly, might those services be? How about a fast lane for special, deep-pocketed customers?

The “joint policy proposal” between the two companies is not government policy. That’s because at the moment, there is no government policy. The FCC has done a lot of listening, but no regulating. And Congress, as it leaves for vacation and prepares for midterm elections, has been idle.

Will the government act on the most important information technology policy question of the era? Or will it leave the debate to corporate America?


 




Recent Posts

An inside look at Fatal Force series

Our recently published “Fatal Force: Two years after Ferguson, police shootings up,” a project with The Washington Post, is an extension of the Post’s Pulitzer Prize-winning series illuminating officer-involved shootings in the United States during 2015, as well as the first follow-up piece the Post published in 2016 that sought to find out how police departments handle releasing the names of officers who use fatal force.

Betty Medsger winds up 'Burglary' tour

Journalist Betty Medsger traveled the country to talk about her book, "The Burglary: The Discovery of J. Edgar Hoover’s Secret FBI,” (Knopf, 2014), in which she relays the back-story of the eight people behind the burglary and how they managed to bring down one of the most powerful and secretive agencies in U.S. history. She found a new generation thinking of the ethical issues they may face as citizens and potential government employees.

IRE's conference lives on through tipsheets

Even if you were not able to attend the annual Investigative Reporters and Editors conference earlier this month in New Orleans, the speakers and panelists create invaluable tipsheets you can still access.


 Subscribe to the RSS Feed

Archives

Twitter

Follow the workshop at IRWorkshop