Google Tries, But Fails, To Outline A Vision For Net Neutrality
from the come-again dept
Unfortunately, the debate over net neutrality has mainly been filled with nonsensical blather from both sides, rather than serious discussion on the issue. This may be due, in part, to the lack of a good understanding of what net neutrality would actually look like. On its new blog related to public policy, Google makes its case for net neutrality, enumerating what would and wouldn't be allowed under such a regime. But as Tim Lee points out, even within this one blog post, Google's stance is incoherent. For example, the company defends prioritization based on application type (e.g. streaming video) and it acknowledges the right of a broadband provider to offer its own proprietary content (like IPTV). But based on this, there's nothing stopping a broadband provider from giving the lowest priority to streaming video in order to prevent competition to its own service. Also, because proprietary content services are allowed, an operator could just license a third party's content, as a way of getting around limitations on favoritism. Basically, under Google's own scheme, there's really very little to prevent a broadband provider from prioritizing content in any way they want. So perhaps we need to go easier on the various shill groups that obfuscate the issues, since even rational participants can't explain their position very well.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The Interfence
I'm on to you, Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Market
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free Market
That is, until your local DSL provider does the same thing. Then where would you go?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free Market
I live in Philadelphia which is a Comcast town. If Comcast starts shaping traffic and degrading my experience in favor of whatever their 'preferred content' turns out to be, I'll just dump them and get...um...not get online anymore. At least once I stop spending time online I'll have more time to reflect on the beautifully rational US free market system.
In the US, we're still waiting for 'real' broadband like other civilized countries have (where both up and down speeds are measured in Mbps). Seems a little early to start arbitrarily degrading the end-user's experience of competitor's content.
@Joe Weisenthal:
I'm not sure what you find so incoherent about "Prioritizing all applications of a certain general type, such as streaming video" and "Providing managed IP services and proprietary content (like IPTV)" both being "okay" in Google's book (direct quotes from the Google link). They seem to be plainly saying, if you are giving priority on the network to video, you have to do it for all video generally and not on a provider by provider basis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free Market
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here is the only question to ask yourself:
Are you getting what you were promised, and what you paid for? Then who cares what kind of prioritization they do?
If you do not take any extra services from your ISP, then youll still get all the bandwidth you were promised--or else theyre violating their agreement with you.
I would be ok with the ISP setting aside 50% of your bandwidth for DEDICATED FAST LANES for their own IPTV and VOIP services--IF they doubled our total available bandwidth at the same time.
Well, hell, they already do that! The bulk of the bandwidth on your cable line is consumed by TV services theyre trying to sell you. Absent those they could give you tons more bandwidth.
This is what defines good behavior and bad behavior, according to me: if youre getting what you paid for, while the options are not limited in a way which destroys the vitality of the market by stifling our ability to choose and pay for vitality, then whatever stupid stuff your ISP does is OK. Who cares! I don't have roadrunner's browser extensions "provided by roadrunner" and system checking and housecall bullcrap installed.. I dont take their cable TV service.. who cares! I pay for my premium tier of Internet, and for gods sake it's _INDISPENSABLE_ I would pay five times as much for ten times less if that was my only choice, and still count it a bargain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no competition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]