We've only just begun to discuss Net Neutrality in class, but I think that this story is just too important to leave alone for too long. Google and Verizon have announced that they have signed a massive deal, and of course, any deal that includes the word "Google" in it sends shock waves throughout every part of the business, entertainment, and internet community. The biggest question on everyone's mind of course, is "What does this mean for my internet service, whether in my home, my work, or even on my phone? The fear, of course, is that Verizon would be able to create a tiered system of internet access, which would grant certain users or websites (those that pay a premium) faster speeds, wider coverage, or even access to larger stores of information.
Optimists could cite Google itself as an antidote to this process - after all, Google's own Code of Conduct is prefaced by the phrase "Don't be Evil." But, sadly, Google has crossed over to "the dark side," and proposed that net neutrality rules should no longer apply to wireless access, as well as a wide range of additional rules for wired access that have received much negative criticism.
As far as what we've read in class, this sort of situation shouldn't seem unfamiliar. In Chapter 1 of Thussu's "Continuity and Change," (p. 7) Thussu explains the business model of the first wireless telegraph, created and marketed by Guglielmo Marconi in 1901. Much like the wired telegraph, Great Britain controlled the lion's share of wireless traffic as well. This allowed them to dictate that only transmissions sent on Marconi devices would be received and processed, much like their policy on wired telegraphs in the years prior. The difference between the politics of Marconi's transmitter and the current Google-Verizon deal is that competition from other countries made negotiation and compromise a necessity, whereas there is no other ISP-"Google" deal in the works, and there isn't really another Google.
Without any strident opposition from the FCC, or any competition from similar business conglomerates, we are likely to find ourselves in a time of increasingly private control of the Internet. There is, however a fair amount of criticism from groups such as MoveOn.org and Free Press, both of which champion the cause of Net Neutrality. It remains to be seen whether groups like the above two, as well as further public criticism, will coalesce enough to bring Google and Verizon to the negotiating table.
For further reading, check out Josh Silver and Bianca Bosker at the Huffington Post,
Edward Wyatt, Claire Cain Miller and Miguel Helft at the New York Times.
All of the linked articles were used for reference and sources.
Monopoly of information has always been there, which adds to the predicament of the so-called South--the developing countries.The three earliest news agencies of the West, Havas of France, Reuters of England and Wolf of Germany, had divided the world into 'spheres of their influence'. This along with England's control of the Cable telegraph drowned the perspective of the developing countries majority of which had been their colonies.
ReplyDeleteConglomeration works against the plurality of opinion which eats into the vitals of democratic culture. The world is painted in a foreign color which is always juandized. The result is that cultures fail to understand each other, communication among nations stops and this take the world towards 're-tribalization'--in the words of Marshal McLuhan. For a peaceful world every nation should have the opportunity to tell its own story in its own context.
The coming together of Verizon and Google is going to take away that plurality which is need of the hour.
Great blog post, Geoff. I think it’s rather interesting that you brought up the discussion of net neutrality, which is definitely a hot topic in today’s press and I’m sure will come up again in class as well. I think many people see this as a new issue, but as you have mentioned, this business model is actually rooted in historical context, from the time that telegraph messages were sent across Europe a century ago. Those with greater resources and, quite frankly, money, are then able to send and receive messages more quickly and on a larger scale than their smaller counterparts.
ReplyDeleteSo is this a good business practice? For the bottom line, the goal is to make money, so in that case the answer is yes: since larger firms are willing to pay more for exclusive services, then Google and Verizon continue to see an increase in profits. Thus, for large firms, the idea of ending net neutrality allows them to bring in even greater “hits” on the Internet, increasing potential sales. But what about small firms? How can they compete against these giants when there is not a level playing field? Then again, isn’t that what competition and free markets are all about?
I’m not sure what the best solution is, but I’ll be interested to see how this all works out.