Head scratching at Google and Verizon
This morning, possibly out of intrigue or more likely out of boredom, I took a read of the Google-Verizon proposal regarding network neutrality (you can find it here).
I am definitely not a card-carrying EFF member, and I generally don't care all that much about how politics meshes with the Internet. I believe that all companies (especially public ones) are ultimately profit-driven, and their 'public generosity' usually ends they day they have declining quarter-over-quarter profits. I don't think companies are inherently evil, but people often mistake companies with the emotions and moral beliefs normally associated to people - which they are not. They are created to make money, and words like 'loyalty' and 'care' will always be second to 'profit'.
Google, to date, has shown themselves to be a remarkably caring and altruistic company, through a combination of their high-quality free services, their stance on issues like China and their treatment of employees and customers.
Which is why I'm stunned that Google would go out of their way to not only make, but then announce, such a horrible policy. It's as if they want me to not like them.
If you read the policy (and, like I said, it's not exciting reading, but it's not very long either), it basically says that Verizon has agreed not to charge you extra when accessing different sites or services via land-lines, but once you go wireless, the gloves are off. The policy goes further to pander to your emotions by saying that 'health care monitoring' would potentially be a separate, special service but then ends with 'entertainment', which of course is the real reason Verizon wants this policy adopted anyway.
So, in a nutshell, here's what I think this means: In the not-too-distant future, you'll attempt to access certain online sites or services via the Verizon network, and 2 things will happen:
a) You'll have a difficult time consuming certain services because they will fail to load or become painfully slow, to the point where you'll then not be able to consume certain sites/video/whatever while effectively being pushed to purchase/use the 'fast' ones. Unlike now, where Verizon takes out ads to make fun of AT&T's crappier network and both companies spend tons to upgrade their networks to take market share, they will now be motivated not to improve the network versus a competitor, but rather how best to segment their bandwidth so as to push the subscriber to 'upgrade' to a 'premium bandwidth' package.
b) You'll be perpetually solicited to 'sign up for SuperX', a $4.95 service (but don't worry, you can just text back the #1 and it will be added to your bill) so that you can watch streaming video without interruption or performance issues. Most likely, these services will be bundles like your cable bill, where you'll get 'the best of mobile video' - movies, sports, whatever - and you'll get the 'privilege' of paying for not only your mobile phone bill but also your individually subscribed services, which will this get preferential treatment by Verizon's cell towers.
No matter how you slice it, it means that your cell phone bill will go up and certain services will simply have distribution that others cannot afford. Have a mobile startup that streams video? Good luck to you...unless you pay upfront fees to Verizon to be included in their 'super-video' bundle. Otherwise, well, it might be a while to watch that trailer.
Now, I haven't spent a ton of time on this issue, but I wonder what's wrong with AT&T's new policy they've enacted on iPhones, which would seem to alleviate the concerns that the telco's hide behind when they talk of strained networks. What AT&T has done is basically eliminate unlimited data plans and force you to pay for what you eat (well, at least beyond 2GB per month on an iPhone). No favoritism (at least that I'm aware of), but just making me pay for being a heavy consumer of their network, ostensibly so that they can use my extra revenue to go out and build more towers.
Now I would never point at AT&T as a good corporate citizen, and I suspect they already have their upgraded wireless bundles ready to go. I guess I'm just wondering why we can't let folks choose the amount of wireless data they want to consume and pay based on that.
Ah, but I know why. Because then cell phone companies would make less money. And we can't have that.
