Google Responds To Net Neutrality Reviews

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Google has written a defense of their joint Net Neutrality proposal with Verizon, responding to criticism like the EFF's recent review. Google presents its arguments as a list of myths and facts, but too many of them look like this one: 'MYTH: This proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless. FACT: It's true that Google previously has advocated for certain openness safeguards to be applied in a similar fashion to what would be applied to wireline services. However, in the spirit of compromise, we have agreed to a proposal that allows this market to remain free from regulation for now, while Congress keeps a watchful eye. Why? First, the wireless market is more competitive than the wireline market, given that consumers typically have more than just two providers to choose from. Second, because wireless networks employ airwaves, rather than wires, and share constrained capacity among many users, these carriers need to manage their networks more actively. Third, network and device openness is now beginning to take off as a significant business model in this space.'"

Comments

question

[roman_mir]

Is the infrastructure for the wireless services created without any government subsidy, government tax break, government money?

If there is no government money involved in creating the infrastructure for these services, then government cannot force their own vision of contract between the service provider and a customer. So as long as the customer is given a clear description of the service, and the description is real, there is nothing for net neutrality to do there.

What I mean is that most land lines were/are somehow subsidized by government money/regulations/power/tax benefits, whatever, and thus it is possible for government to exert power over the contracts that are sold to customers. But for the sake of an argument if there is a company that laid its own cables, paid all the taxes, didn't get any subsidies, then what is an argument against that company selling a service, that can discriminate against certain web sites, against certain protocols, whatever, as long as it's in the contract?

This is similar to somebody renting an apartment with Internet connection included, but with certain sites/protocols being filtered out.