What does the FCC’s apparent abandonment of “network neutrality” oversight mean for internet service providers and wireless networks? Net neutrality’s impact on wireless networks wasn’t clear to begin with, and isn’t clearer now. Sunroom Desk asked a similar question in May 2010:
Will a net-neutrality policy inhibit or promote wireless broadband? Almost no one asks this question specifically, although AT&T and Verizon are warning that such regulations will reduce their investments.
Wireless networks are currently strained by smartphone demand. FCC rules forcing carriers to provide equal access at the same price, no matter how bandwidth intensive, will require a lot more towers and signal but will discourage investment. A lack of regulation would allow carriers to charge heavy users greater fees, discouraging egregious network use and possibly discouraging egregious buildout of ugly towers and cell sites everywhere. Tough choice, and all but ignored. The focus now is on corporate control v. government control of information channels.
The latest agreement, hammered out privately between Verizon and Google, appears to be a proposal rejected by the FCC, and leaves open all the major issues with wireless networks. Most observers believe wireless networks, currently strained by inadequate infrastructure, will predominate in the future. This isn’t good news for those concerned about the long-term health effects of wireless transmission sites operating 24 hours a day throughout populated areas.
Major commentaries and explanations, under the Paperweight:
Net Neutrality, CNET Video interview with Larry Downes and Maggie Reardon – Focuses on reasons for resistance to the interference of the FCC. Key quotes:
“The real concern is what they might do in the future, like turn it into cable television.”
“Political groups in Washington see this as an opportunity to push other agendas that go along with it…it has been extremely politicized which has been very unhelpful.”
“The whole authority of the FCC to do anything here is being called into question.”
“Either these rules are good for the whole internet, or they aren’t any good at all.”
“Other countries have wired, fiber-optic networks…they have bigger fish to fry…control of internet content [etc.].”
I’m very suspicious and skeptical of the FCC; I think anyone who has looked at the FCC long-term recognizes that there are tremendous risks to introducing them into any industry or any piece of an industry.”
“We will certainly still be talking about this in six months.”
Google, Verizon and net neutrality: what does it mean? – PDA: The Digital Content Blog, August 10, 2010. Key quotes:
The internet today is, mostly, a level playing field. We pay a fee to have access to the internet. Web services pay to host their content and to for that content to be accessible. And internet service providers pay for the bit in between – the connection.
…the desktop is dying – wireless, mobile networks are the future. So the internet of the future will operate on the network of the future which will largely be a wireless one. Under the Google-Verizon proposal, wireless services would be exempt from all these requirements, which means ISPs would be able to discriminate against competitors and would be able to block access to a service even if it was legal. It’s the same principle as your mobile operator charing you more to call a friend on another network – but with everything from video, to email, gaming, music – anything you do on your phone.
A paper trail of betrayal: Google’s net neutrality collapse – ArsTechnica, August 11, 2010:
What’s all this about the “unique” character of wireless networks? Rob Frieden, a respected Penn State telecoms scholar, noted this week that “the rationale for exempting wireless does not pass the smell test… The technical and operational aspects of wireless strongly necessitate the non-discrimination requirement.”
Back in April, Google agreed. It strongly lobbied against this idea and the logic behind it. Wireless companies (like Verizon) that seek a nondiscrimination exemption based on the allegedly “competitive nature” of the wireless sector, “fail to acknowledge some relevant facts,” the company wrote.
Google and Verizon’s net neutrality proposal explained, EnGadget, August 9, 2010:
Now, we don’t know for sure what happened, but we’ve got a theory: the proposal reads to us like Verizon’s basically agreeing to trade neutrality on its wired networks for the right to control its wireless network any way it wants — apart from requiring wireless carriers and ISPs to be “transparent” about network management, none of the neutrality principles that govern wired networks will apply to wireless networks. That’s a big deal — it’s pretty obvious that wireless broadband will be the defining access technology for the next generation of devices and services.
What is clear from all the above is that very powerful corporations are fighting an all-out battle to retain financial and managerial control over commercial information networks, wired or wireless. Doesn’t the public deserve another option to big business or big government control over information networks?