Facebook, usually a sleeping giant when it comes to making its opinions felt in how the internet should run, has come out and made it clear that it does not support the new accord over Net Neutrality that Verizon and Google have reached (see Faultline last week).
Facebook said simply that it continues to support principles of Net Neutrality for both landline and wireless networks, a key differential with Google who said that only fixed line ISPs should be held to Net Neutrality principles, when it proposed its framework early last week.
Verizon and Google are proposing that fixed ISPs should not be able to ‘degrade’ traffic which already travels over the Internet, but new services might be introduced, which they call managed services, which might be prioritized. This would mean offering preferred delivery to those new services, which by definition, would mean that less bandwidth is available in total on the internet, to service traffic which had a lower priority.
Facebook added, ‘Preserving an open Internet that is accessible to innovators – regardless of their size or wealth – will promote a vibrant and competitive marketplace where consumers have ultimate control over the content and services delivered through their Internet connections.’
There has been a lot of hot air from operators like AT&T and Verizon about stopping the Googles and Facebooks of this world from getting a free ride, and making them pay for service delivery, but the truth of the matter is that consumers pay for broadband, so whatever services they choose to use, the transport is therefore already paid. The issue of capping broadband is a different issue which relates to the contract between the customer and the operator, but creating a two or more tiered internet is seen as a direct breach of Network Neutrality principles.
Google came back over the Facebook comments and said ‘ Google has taken a backseat to no one in its support for an open Internet. We are not saying this framework is perfect but we believe that a proposal which locks in key enforceable protections for consumers is preferable to no protection.’ Right now there are no legal protections for Network Neutrality in the US, although the FCC is trying to find a way to enforce them. In Europe framework of suggested legal guidelines is being proposed which the European Commission hopes to turn into a full directive to guide European lawmakers.
Clearly Google thought that by ring fencing its growing cellular connectivity, it could get Verizon onside over agreeing protection for other fixed line internet activity. But given how shortcuts to both Google search and Facebook are becoming pre-requisites on most handsets, it seems shortsighted for them to agree that Net Neutrality can be dropped on US handsets.
And while Google is hoping to get its way over net neutrality by sheer force of market weight, the official policy channels are not giving up without a fight for their broader definition. In the latest move, four Democratic Representatives have called on FCC chair Julius Genachowski to reassert the agency’s authority and include wireless networks in neutrality regulations.
In the letter to Genachowski, the lawmakers said “formal FCC action is needed”, rather than “expansion upon a proposal by two large communications companies with a vested financial interest in the outcome”. The quartet – Ed Markey, Anna Eshoo, Mike Doyle and Jay Inslee, all members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee – oppose the Verizon/Google proposal, which has attracted partial support from AT&T. This proposal bans prioritization, even for fees, of one internet traffic type over another, on wired networks, but exempts wireless.
The FCC is currently considering whether to reclassify broadband as a ‘Title II common carrier service’, which would be crucial to introducing net neutrality legislation in the US.