Google and Verizon Talk About "The Path To An Open Internet"

Illustration for article titled Google and Verizon Talk About "The Path To An Open Internet"

Google and Verizon chief executives Eric Schmidt and Ivan Seidenberg got together to write a very special Washington Post op-ed on net neutrality. They used this piece as an opportunity to explain their companies' joint proposal on related policy framework.

Advertisement

A significant bit to take away from this op-ed is that Schmidt and Seidenberg tried to be humble through it—emphasizing that there's far more to the Internet and to net neutrality than just Google and Verizon:

There are hundreds of millions of Internet users in the United States, and no two companies should be so presumptuous as to think they can solve this challenge alone. It is up to policymakers to establish broadband policy for the country. We are eager to work with Congress, the FCC and other interested parties to get this right. We hope that our proposal provides some concrete ideas to move this process forward.

I strongly recommend giving the op-ed a look and also reading our take on the policy proposal. This is one topic that affects us all and certainly something worth staying informed about. [Washington Post]

DISCUSSION

norwoodismyhero
NorwoodIsMyHero

So Gizmodo's problem is that basically, Verizon wants to give priority to users using premium service over users using the "open" internet?

Sorry, can't see the problem. IT sure seems to me that it would be better to let the market solve this particular (though not all for all you nutheads who think I'm espousing some libertarian insanity) issue.

If enough people actually care to notice they are going slower when they are using the "open" internet, do you realize what will happen? They'll be tempted to switch providers to someone who has faster open internet speeds, or who refuses to discriminate between traffic.

My only thing would be, if this is how they choose to do business they need to either eliminate their ETFs, or reduce it down to simply the difference between the full retail price and the discounted price given for signing a contract of the individual phone the customer bought. If the Federal Government wanted to force them to do that, I'd be fine with it.

But I'm a bit leery of making the FCC the final arbiter of what Net Neutrality is, given the state of TV and Radio regulation.