Columnist: Google, Verizon proposal isn't without merit but has big flaw

Earlier this month we reported the proposal between Google and Verizon that would exempt wireless Internet services and second level of the Internet from net neutrality regulations. That agreement has some merits and has understandably been met by much outcry from net neutrality advocates, but is most confusing because of the parties involved, writes one technology columnist. "Many Web sites and telecom firms would probably support the policies, but it's odd that they are coming from these two in particular," Rob Pegoraro of The Washington Post writes, noting Google has long supported net neutrality regulation and Verizon "didn't have a problem buying up new spectrum under those obligations."

Still, the "proposal features some reasonable ideas," Pegoraro writes. "Chief among them is requiring transparency about network-management practices. The insistence of telecom firms that they don't -- or no longer -- discriminate against legitimate sites and services suggests that publicity alone might deter some abuses." Pegoraro doesn't dismiss the proposals' call for "additional online services" that would not be subject to net neutrality out of hand either, but notes "it would help if the companies better explained what they have in mind."

Pegoraro notes the one area the proposal has earned its negative backlash is that "Google and Verizon make a fundamental mistake in not treating wired and wireless connections alike." He notes two ways unregulated wireless service would constrain competition: "First, 3G coverage maps of carriers illustrate how many areas have just two or one choices for mobile broadband," he writes. "Second, long-term contracts mean most users can vote with their wallets only every two years."

"So why would we now want to subject companies that use a cable or wire to provide broadband to stringent regulations and leave out competitors that use public airwaves?" Pegoraro concludes. "Just because the government plays favorites this way all the time doesn't mean it should repeat that error."
(Read more)