The National Broadband Plan: The Good The Bad and The Ugly – Part II
August 6, 2010 9 Comments
By now, it should be obvious to everyone that Google has been trying hard to create other revenue generating business models to help them to reduce their dependency on their sole search advertising business responsible for over 90% of their annual revenue. It is also becoming obvious (at least to me) as the company fails more and more with their new businesses like their Nexus One smartphone and Google Wave, they are becoming more evil than ever.
Google is in talks with Verizon that would kill the Net Neutrality for good once (or if) it goes through. It is certainly time to revoke Google’s “Do No Evil”. What the hell happened to their Public Policy statement? “Hey FCC, keep the Internet open — and awesome!”
Once the News broke yesterday, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ended closed-door talks with several companies over the future of net neutrality and lashed out against the practice of paying for faster transmission of data over the Internet.
“Any outcome, any deal that doesn’t preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet for consumers and entrepreneurs will be unacceptable,” FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski told reporters yesterday.
Google is orchestrating their deal with Verizon that would allow Verizon to prioritize Internet traffic as it sees fit. Basically, the companies would charge some Internet content providers more than others for the transmission of their data to users across the world. i.e.
Company A delivers video-conferencing services in competition with Company B. Company A strikes a deal with Verizon, which gives Company A’s data packets priority over everyone else’s traffic, including Company B.
If you liked the features of Company B and had been using the service, too bad. Your data just won’t flow as cleanly as A’s will.
In other words, Verizon (and any of the other “last-mile” internet providers) get to play traffic cop, and shake down companies for whatever they think they can charge to get their packets at the head of the line.
You could argue there is a market for that competitive advantage — but the Net Neutrality crowd recognizes that Company A getting that premium boost comes at the expense of every other user.
Company B has two options here:
a) They could either pay Verizon $2X so that their content loads faster,
b) or it can be content with the fact that their rival just paid for better access to the same customer base. Internet
This deal sounds like bureaucratic walking-it-back talk to me. There is no difference between “hardcore Net Neutrality” and the “telecom view”. There is Net Neutrality or there isn’t. Having worked in telecom sector since 1995, the “telecom view” means “how can we make money on this?”
It’s fine to discriminate between audio and video? Really? 10MB is 10MB. It should be nobody’s business whether that 10MB is music, a video clip, an image, or a text file.
I believe there are other reasons Google changing course. It may see the FCC’s lost court case with Comcast this April as a sign that the dismantling of the old way of doing things is inevitable.
Google is becoming very bad and Verizon very ugly here..
All this sounds like Verizon is cutting a good deal for themselves where their customers (including me) will wind up paying more if they use Google’s content- this is due to people using and watching more YouTube videos so this deal only makes sense that Verizon with it’s FIOS network (they should be pushing this product everywhere) would cut this deal. You may see all the cable and phone companies go this route soon.
The future of Net Neutrality and its alternatives has not yet been decided, but if this end up going to be a broadly encompassing deal, it could influence public policy.