| Google is just hedging its bets. The buzzphrase "network neutrality" has never had any agreed-upon definition. In practice, it simply means whatever the speaker hopes to accomplish by imposing onerous regulations upon ISPs. In Google's case, there are several ways that it can protect its multiple Internet monopolies (Internet search, Internet search advertising, Internet banner advertising, Internet video) by regulating ISPs, and thus several "definitions" that would be acceptable to it.
In this case, Google is being crafty and hedging its bets. Its internal lobbyists are pushing for one definition in negotiations with Verizon (and was also doing so in the closed door meetings at the FCC), while Google's external lobbying groups (Public Knowledge, Free Press, New America, Future of Music Coalition, Open Internet Coalition) are pushing for another which pretends to be more "idealistic" but in reality accomplishes the same thing: protecting Google's monopoly positions and locking out new competition. These "astroturf" groups claim that because they are taking a very slightly different stance than Google's internal lobbyists, they're opposing Google and therefore are not working for it. (The money trails, of course, demonstrate otherwise.) Good cop, bad cop.
If either definition prevails, and "network neutrality" legislation or regulations are passed, Google wins. And the public is harmed by higher broadband prices, fewer choices of Internet providers, lower quality of service, slower deployment, less innovation, and (of course) being forced to deal with Google's monopolies.
The only way the PUBLIC wins is if no "network neutrality" regulation of any form happens. It's not necessary. The Internet has survived for 27 years without it and is still going strong -- despite the doomsaying of Google's lobbyists. |
