You might disagree with it, but it's not illogical. There's a big, big difference between saying "I don't agree with Google" and "there's no possible logical reason for their position, therefore it must be evil." What you're expressing above is one possible interpretation of how the future could unfold, but different, intelligent people can easily disagree about that.
I don't think an intelligent person would believe that once a tiered internet were in place that there is a high probability of it changing.
When google says "don't be evil", I take that to mean they wouldn't promote an internet where the traffic from my site may be forced to take a backseat to the traffic from Giant Corporation because I can't give a big enough kickback to verizon.
Given google's "don't be evil" mantra it's illogical for them to promote a tiered internet since such a promotion is contrary to their mantra.
I don't think an intelligent person would believe that once a tiered internet were in place that there is a high probability of it changing.
There are a number of historical precedence that provide some evidence that it could change.
In the early days of internet access companies like AOL charged different rates for access to their (non-internet) network and the real internet. That went away.
In non-US markets tiered access is quite common, but hasn't proved to be a massive problem. In Australia (where bandwidth caps are common), most ISPs provide "non-metered" access to some sites (gaming servers, download mirrors, the national broadcaster), and many mobile access providers run promotions for "free facebook" etc.
Generally, consumers find these things annoying to keep track of and switch over to a higher-cost plan where they don't need to worry about them. Some very price-conscious consumers (eg, students) benefit a lot from them at the cost of some convenience.
Gradually companies seem to be dropping the more complex of these plans because of the customer confusion it causes.
(I guess I should insert some witty reply about how my belief in this possibility precludes the possibility of me being intelligent. Unfortunately I'm going to have to rely on there being a question as to if my lack of intelligence is causal WRT my lack of witty response, or vice-versa. Sorry).
Net neutrality isn't about charging consumers a different price depending on what services they use. Providers like Verizon want to exploit their control of the infrastructure to extort kickbacks from web-based businesses.
Take VOIP, for example. It won't be VOIP as a whole that receives priority access, but Skype VOIP - and in exchange, Skype will kick a portion of their revenue back to Verizon. Verizon gets a bit of juice and Skype doesn't have to worry about competing with other VOIP providers. It will be invisible to users.
A similar process happened in the video rental business when Blockbuster signed a deal with the movie studios to pay less upfront for videos, while kicking back some of their rental revenue to the studios. Whereas an independent rental store might pay $100 for a tape, Blockbuster paid almost nothing - the independents went out of business, and video rental became a Blockbuster-dominated monoculture.
Extortion is illegal with or without Net Neutrality.
Skype and Verizon are both only in business because users find the services worth their money. That can change. If users are getting ripped off by shitty service, then it has ceased to be invisible to the users.
Blockbuster is a horrible example. A lot of good that deal did them! This monopolized monoculture you describe has been crushed and blown to bits long ago by Netflix, Amazon, Apple and the rest of the internet.
These are conspiracy theories, not rational arguments.
It took far, far too long for Blockbuster to feel the effects of that. I really don't want things to be terrible for 15 years while a practice like this catches up to them. Besides, it sets a terrible precedent.
And there are many services that are ripoffs that are largely below the consciousness of consumers.
So lets say Blockbuster, as a benefactor if said agreement, became a monopoly for... 5 years? maybe 10? In this example, how were things that terrible? Independent movie rental shops couldn't compete? What else?
Of course I don't want things to be terrible for 15 years, but I haven't heard anything that would lead me to reasonably believe it would be. If wireless internet remains less-regulated than wired for 5-10 years, what do you expect will happen? Verizon and Google will team up, hike wireless prices, block torrents and censor content?
Maybe we should let events play out a little more before crying out that our internet freedoms are being trampled by faceless mega-corporations. Maybe Google, Verizon, FCC, and other agencies aren't sure yet how best to compromise on this complicated issue. Maybe demanding a non-negotiable "everything is free (as in freedom)" policy isn't the best response 1 day after a vague press release.
> Blockbuster is a horrible example. A lot of good that deal did them! This monopolized monoculture you describe has been crushed and blown to bits long ago by Netflix, Amazon, Apple and the rest of the internet.
Too bad Verizon hadn't thought about shaking down online video rental companies a few years ago. Blockbuster could have given them a sweet deal.
I don't think an intelligent person would believe that once a regulated Internet were in place that there is a high probability of it changing either. Now, if it is regulated properly, that's a feature, not a bug, but that's a big if.
I'm certainly not one of those individuals who believe that any regulation is bad regulation, but there is a not-insignificant chance that regulating the nascent wireless space before it has truly matured will result in bad regulation. And once bad regulation is in place, it can be very difficult to change in a meaningful way.
It seems to me that there is danger in both approaches: an entrenched base of huge corporations pushing an unregulated tiered wireless internet is a bad future. Likewise, an improperly regulated wireless internet is an equally bad scenario.
As I understand it, this deal does not sacrifice a neutral wireless internet for a neutral wired one, it merely eschews applying neutrality rules to the wireless internet while proposing neutrality rules for the wired one. Which is very different from the assertion that this deal puts a tiered wireless internet in place.
Which, given its nascent status, seems like the most prudent approach.
In American history it's been far easier to deregulate than it has been to regulate. The telecoms themselves have seen massive deregulation in the past few decades.
Regulation is a form of power for the government. Again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but government and corporations certainly share a desire to be as powerful as possible. Giving either power should thus be a carefully considered move. In some instances, it makes sense. In some it doesn't. But one can be sure that, either way, the entrenched institutions will not willingly give up any power granted to them.
I think the most salient factor here is that regulation requires good information on how that industry/space works. I don't think its questionable that we are not sure what future the wireless/mobile internet holds, only that it big. Regulating it properly right now seems like a dubious proposition-- either through the traditional kind of government regulation or through the "self-regulation" of large corporations, who will naturally shape such self-regulation to their own advantage.
They weren't promoting a tiered internet by advocating it as a good thing; they were against regulating things just yet. Those are two very, very different things.
forgive the hyperbole, I know these two things aren't the same degree of bad, but it's the same logic.
this is like saying that someone isn't promoting racism just yet, they are just against the government regulating businesses so that they can't deny service to someone based on race.
They may be two different means, but they come to the same end.
