(Thumbnail Image: Wired)
Get more multi-source news analysis from Newsy.com.
Google and Verizon announced a proposal for what they call an “Open Internet.” The proposal outlines how each of three networks should be regulated, but it’s already facing widespread backlash.
According to Google and Verizon, the Internet should be divided into three networks: One — public, wired Internet, two — private Internet and finally — wireless Internet.
Google and Verizon say Net Neutrality regulations and standards should be applied to the public Internet but not to the private and wireless Internet, allowing service providers to offer premium services or regulate certain kinds of traffics on those networks.
Bloomberg explains how this plan could impact consumers.
“What it means is the Internet is going to become more like other parts of the economy. For example, if you are driving down the road there are the free high ways and the tollbooths. Essentially, we are going to create that same type of situation over the Internet. There will be companies that are going to be willing to pay higher prices in order to get speedier applications over the Internet.”
Google and Verizon’s plan is facing heavy criticism for proposing a tiered Internet system and compromising Google’s long-held support for net neutrality. On Democracy Now! the spokesman for Freepress.net says Google’s plan goes against the ideals they’ve been advocating for years.
“And part of what’s so remarkable about this, Google for the last five years during this epic battle over Net Neutrality, Google has sided with the public interest groups and with other Internet companies like Skype and Verizon, excuse me, Skype and Amazon and Ebay and others to support net neutrality.”
A writer for The Atlantic asks why wireless networks should be treated differently than wired networks.
“If open networks are good, why should wireless be different? They don't make the case in these documents for why the 'unique technical and operational characteristics' should change the fundamental underlying principle of the network.”
Buzz Machine adds onto this point, saying that in the future, more people will use wireless networks than wired networks for Internet access.
“Mobile is the internet. Mobile will very soon become a meaningless word when — well, if telcos allow it, that is — we are connected everywhere all the time. Then who cares where you are? Mobile? doesn’t matter. You’re just connected.”
On CNBC, a panel argue the plan would have many benefits and would encourage investment in broadband networks.
“I’ll tell you who its good for, it's good for that, it's good for the carriers, it's good for equipment makers like Cisco and Juniper, and it's good for people who own and distribute content already, because now you don’t have to worry so much if some these rules come down potentially about new competitors who aren’t that well funded, these start ups coming in pirating your content. They have to pay to transmit that stuff now, so there are a few more barriers to entry.”
Now it's up to the FCC to back any of Google and Verizon’s ideas. A writer for Gigaom notes at at this point, Google and Verizon’s proposal is still just a proposal.
“The good news is nothing about this compromise has any teeth without the FCC deciding to make it part of its official rules on network neutrality.”
What do you think of Verizon and Google’s proposal? Does it uphold an open Internet?
Get more multi-source news analysis from Newsy.com.
WRITER: Madison Mack
PRODUCER: Newsy Staff
 |  |  |  |
