The real purpose behind Net Neutrality is anything but honorable
Many of use suspected that there were ulterior motives behind Net Neutrality regulations, but we never thought it would be this blatantly underhanded. I had a chance to speak with one of the biggest experts on Internet peering William Norton and it was an eyeopener for me. The resulting article below has some very interesting revelations.
FCC NPRM ban on Paid Peering harms new innovators
The current FCC NPRM would prohibit paid peering agreements and harm small content providers while ensuring Google’s dominance on content distribution. Google is big enough to get free peering, but the NPRM would force their competitors to pay more for inferior transit access.
So in the grand scheme of things, Google just found a legal way to monopolize the internet, without monopolizing the internet.
So, why didn’t some one else put two and two together a while ago. Why was this just now realized. The fact that Google was one of the main companies pushing for Net Neutrality should have been a tip off.
I was never for the entire idea of Net neutrality, but this wasn’t any where in the thought process.
These structures are extremely complex, and few people understand how it really works.
How can FCC queries into peering be rejected? Last I knew, the FCC was the oversight committee to govern how the internet is supposed to work. Does the “Federal” part not mean anything anymore?
I remember the stories from a couple years ago about how Google was buying up all of the dark fiber. The purpose at the time was unclear. Many people suspected that Google was considering becoming an ISP.
http://www.voip-news.com/feature/google-dark-fiber-050707/
The problem with this conspiracy theory; and while I see this as most likely true, this is still a conspiracy theory, is that Google has other content providers on its side. How could content providers line up with the lines of Google if only Google were to benefit from this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/21/technology/21iht-ptend22.2018444.html.
I don’t see how this benefits smaller content providers. To me, this sounds like larger content providers get a cut rate deal unless they have their own direct access to the ISP for faster access.
The FCC can’t for no reason inquire into NDA contracts. They can change the law to allow them to do so, but do you want government to have this power? No wrong doing was being suspected, so they shouldn’t be able to break into existing contracts.
The Internet is global and it’s regulated by the IETF and other international organizations.
As for other content providers supporting Google, and all the dotcoms signing their name to the letter to the FCC, most of them haven’t even read the regulations. One of the executives who signed the support letter said he opposed new regulations even though he just signed a letter supporting new regulations.
These rules don’t affect most dotcoms because they’re better off buying transit. You have to remember that not everyone is trying to distribute video.