Google has moved one step further away from its mantra of “don’t be evil”.

Google has been in closed-door talks with Verizon crafting their version of net neutrality. After information about the meetings was leaked the two behemoth companies held a press conference to discuss what was “really” going on.

The good part

Googizon (Veroogle?) have been working on drafting public policy to submit to the government with regard to net neutrality. They’re OK with net neutrality existing on existing broadband networks (meaning one company can’t pay for faster speed/priority for their content at the detriment to others). This is good. It means everyone has a level playing field, from Google to the startup working out of a garage. It fosters innovation and preserves the most significant advance in technology the world has known since the printing press.

Then it gets evil

The bad part comes when you read what they left out:

  1. It doesn’t apply to wireless networks (which is the future of broadband and arguably more important than wired communications)
  2. It doesn’t apply to any new networks that are developed (the future of broadband)
  3. The FCC very little control to enforce the rules

This means a second network (the Schminternet, if you will – great post, read it) could be created and the net neutrality rules which helped bring so much innovation and advancement in our society would be stuck on the old, slow, clunky networks while Google and Verizon and the other incumbents frolic on their speedy new networks, untouchable by other potential competitors.

Think of it as all “the little people” using dial-up and only the big players being able to use a fiber optic connection.

Why is this evil?

Bailing on net neutrality (which Google has been a big proponent of, so what gives?) would horribly stifle innovation. Who is going to use a new, yet-to-be-discovered search engine, or social network, or video service that runs slow when Google, Facebook and YouTube’s respective sites load so much faster and, therefore, is capable of so many more features?

Give us the dumb pipe

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: all we really want are dumb pipes. Give me my data, give it to me fast and where I want. Let me connect whatever I want to it. Make that the grounds on which you compete, not someone CEO’s decision about what I should and shouldn’t be able to do with the service I pay for.

Sadly, I feel a little dirty right now as I look at all the Google services I use. But what are the other options? Each alternative I can think of also has major downsides as well. The upside is that this is just a draft of something they’re proposing – it isn’t law. Still, the fact that Google has gone from champion of the free Internet to getting in bed with Verizon royally ticks me off.

Additional reading

Here are some articles you should check out:

Engadget (Thorough, understandable analysis. Must read.)
Wired (“Why Google Became A Carrier @#$$!@#, Net Neutrality Surrender Monkey”)
Buzzmachine (All about the second Internet.)

Let’s talk

I do think there could be space for some careful regulation of the Internet – providers need to be able to protect their networks from malicious activity, obviously. There are obviously many more facets to this discussion. Where do we draw the line? Who draws it?