Net Neutrality - Google and Verizon

This is going to be a long, rambling blog post. There are several reasons for this. First of all, net neutrality is a complicated issue. Secondly, I'm not sure where I stand on the issue. The combination of those two factors means that I searched out a lot of information and jammed it all in this post. Enjoy!


Looks like net neutrality is back in the news. According to this story, Google and Verizon are close to making a deal that appears to be at odds with Google's previous position on this subject.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/technology/05secret.html?_r=1&ref=technology

What is "net neutrality"? Is it a good thing, in that it attempts to allow everyone to have equal access to the Internet? Or is it a bad thing, in that it interferes with voluntary exchange between businesses and consumers?

Here is a link to Google's public policy blog, regarding net neutrality. I'm no expert, but there appears to be a lot of nuance to Google's stance.
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/search/label/Net%20Neutrality

And here is a specific link to "A joint policy proposal for an open internet" from Google's Public Policy Blog. (If it's not sinking in yet, this is a "must read" blog if you're interested in the internet.)
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-for-open-internet.html

Based on the net neutrality issue, this article from Mother Jones asks: "Is Google a Little Bit Evil?":
http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/08/net-neutrality-begins-crumble


I'll be honest: I don't know what to think about net neutrality. It's a laudable goal to keep the internet free of control from gatekeepers who favor certain content. But let's not kid ourselves. If we enforce net neutrality legislatively, that interferes with our ability to freely contract with each other. Some of us might be okay with paying more for faster service. Or we might be okay with our internet service provider favoring some content providers if, in exchange, we get lower rates.

Sadly, we may not deserve an open internet. Just like we don't deserve honest politicians, bloatware-free phones (long live the Nexus One!), ATMs without fees, cheaper gas if you pay cash, etc. We, as consumers, can insist on all of the above. We can choose to make this happen. But we don't. I don't see how an open internet is any different.

Consider this article, as an example of what may be coming if we allow the government to step in and have too much power over the internet: "Bill would give president emergency control of Internet."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

And consider this article on the other side of the issue, which shows us what horrors may be in store if the government does not step in: "Why network neutrality is a big deal."
http://packetlife.net/blog/2009/oct/28/why-network-neutrality-big-deal/

It is not even clear that the government has the right to step into this issue (not that that would stop them, of course).  The WSJ blog discusses this.  "DC Circuit Takes Hit at Net Neutrality, Ninja"
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/04/06/dc-circuit-takes-hit-at-net-neutrality-ninja/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Flaw%2Ffeed+%28WSJ.com%3A+Law+Blog%29

"It’s long been clear that some net neutrality battles would be waged in court. Today the DC Circuit Court of Appeals weighed in and handed the telecoms a victory against the Federal Communications Commission, which has supported net-neutrality principles.

"The case before the DC circuit stemmed a citation issued by the FCC against Comcast in 2008 for interfering with or blocking its subscribers’ use of peer-to-peer networking applications. Those applications, such as BitTorrent, allow users to share large files directly with one another but consume significant amounts of bandwidth.

"A unanimous three-judge DC Circuit panel ruled the FCC exceeded its authority when it issued the citation, ruling that Congress hadn’t given the FCC the power to regulate an Internet service provider’s network-management practices.

"'The commission has failed to tie its assertion of ancillary authority over Comcast’s Internet service to any statutorily mandated responsibility,' the court said in a 36-page opinion.

"It’s unclear what effect the decision will have on net neutrality. It could, for example, throw into question the FCC’s authority to impose open Internet rules, according to the early WSJ Story and the Hill.

"The court’s move, according to the Hill, could be a major roadblock for the FCC, which drafted its comprehensive National Broadband Plan this year under the assumption that it possesses regulatory power over the Internet and the companies that provide users’ access to it."


There are several good links in the previous article, including this one which has some quotes that illustrate both sides of the issue:
http://www.mail-archive.com/medianews@twiar.org/msg11384.html

"The Internet as we know it is facing a serious threat. Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody -- no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional -- has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest."  -- Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt

"What if a cable company with a pro-choice board of directors decides that it doesn't like a pro-life organization using its high-speed network to encourage pro-life activities? Under the new rules, they could slow down the pro-life Web site, harming their ability to communicate with other pro-lifers -- and it would be legal."  -- Roberta Combs, president of Christian Coalition of America

"We and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a Google or Yahoo or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes free is nuts."  --AT&T Chief Executive Edward Whitacre

"This is a vigorously competitive marketplace that is working to benefit consumers. There is no need for new laws and regulations."  --David L. Cohen, a Comcast executive vice president



We should also discuss a related topic: edge caching. Here's an older article about edge caching.
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB122929270127905065-lMyQjAxMDI4MjE5NTIxOTUyWj.html

"Google's proposed arrangement with network providers, internally called OpenEdge, would place Google servers directly within the network of the service providers, according to documents reviewed by the Journal. The setup would accelerate Google's service for users. Google has asked the providers it has approached not to talk about the idea, according to people familiar with the plans."

"Asked about OpenEdge, Google said only that other companies such as Yahoo and Microsoft could strike similar deals if they desired. But Google's move, if successful, would give it an advantage available to very few."

Google responded to this, in a post that I find accurate and persuasive.
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/12/net-neutrality-and-benefits-of-caching.html

Net neutrality means that everyone should have the same level of access to the internet. Google is a proponent of net neutrality. However, critics denounce their edge caching scheme as a way to get preferential treatment. I don't agree.

An example of something that is NOT net neutral would be if I were an ISP and I said, pay me $10/mo for non-preferred access. Or pay me $25/mo to get preferred access. That is, when the network is clogged, the $25/mo guy's e-mails will go through right away while the $10/mo guy's e-mails won't.

This is different than what Google is talking about. If you go to, say, YouTube your computer connects to your ISP. Then your ISP has to connect to YouTube. Content flows from YouTube to your ISP and then from the ISP to your computer.

Google proposes putting servers in the ISP's facilities. Then when someone wants a YouTube video, it will come directly from the YouTube-owned servers within the ISP. A company that can provide this service will provide the user with a much faster experience. Network congestion between the ISP and YouTube will have no impact because that part of the path is no longer needed.

Critics see this as a way whereby Google will achieve preferential status, and perhaps they're right. But here's the difference: This is not a violation of net neutrality because Google is trying to EARN that preferred position. It costs them money to put those servers there. No matter if you're the $10/mo guy or the $25/mo guy, they're not telling the ISP to treat users any differently. The user-experience will improve for ALL users. Even for non-Google websites, because they just freed up more of the network pipes by not requiring YouTube videos to flow over the network (between YouTube and that ISP). So the experience of connecting to their competitors' sites will also improve (by a little bit--not as much as the experience of connecting to YouTube has).

Point is, Google is spending money to improve the user experience for all customers, to the detriment of their competitors, BUT NOT GIVING ANY PARTICULAR USER ANY PREFERENCE. Focus on the user and all else will follow. That's rule #1 in the Google handbook, by the way.
http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html


P.S. Only a day after I posted this, I saw this article from Ars Technica, which portrays the Google and Verizon agreement in a negative light:
"A paper trail of betrayal: Google's net neutrality collapse"
http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/08/a-paper-trail-of-betrayal-googles-net-neutrality-collapse.ars

P.P.S. And two days later, this from Wired:
"Why Google Became A Carrier-Humping, Net Neutrality Surrender Monkey"
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/08/why-google-became-a-carrier-humping-net-neutrality-surrender-monkey/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29

P.P.P.S. Google's response:
"Facts about our network neutrality policy proposal"
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/facts-about-our-network-neutrality.html

Google's response basically boils down to: Up until now there has been zero progress on net neutrality, "no enforceable provisions." Some progress is better than no progress. "With that in mind, we decided to partner with a major broadband provider on the best policy solution we could devise together. We’re not saying this solution is perfect, but we believe that a proposal that locks in key enforceable protections for consumers is preferable to no protection at all."