Welcome to Gaia! ::

The New York Times is mistaken.

Gizmodo follows the reports:
http://gizmodo.com/5605310/google-just-killed-net-neutrality

Read the updates at the end.

From reading through their reports, it appears that Google and Verizon have simply been working through the FCC-led negotiations that have been ongoing since courts struck down the FCC's attempts to regulate Comcast.

From what I can tell, the most that Google and Verizon have agreed to is this:
1. Wired internet(read: broadband) is to be net neutral...a strong concession on the part of Verizon, given that's exactly the power Comcast was fighting to keep.
2. Mobile internet(specifically mobile devices like phones, not wifi) can be regulated and Google will not object.

The second point is the point of alarm, but I'm not sure it's even an issue:

1. Google's agreement with Verizon appears to be tied to the Droid, not to its internet service. That sounds like Google saying "well, whatever you do with your mobile internet, we're not going to stop building Droids for you."

2. Mobile internet is all about bandwidth. Phone companies have ALWAYS had control over how their bandwidth is used. Anyone with a Cricket phone during an disaster could tell you that. No one stops them because it's an unfortunate fact of the industry: there is an inherent limit on how much stuff you can funnel through the lines. 3G and 4G are great, but they're still expensive and limited.
If Verizon wants to provide 4G services to compete with Sprint, it's gotta cost them. Compensating by charging companies to benefit more from the faster service has two benefits:
a. More funding for the more expensive system.
b. Less freeloading. Any economist can tell you that a free resource is a scarce resource. If you put a price on faster delivery, the industry regulates itself. If Verizon did not charge for their faster services, they may soon find their bandwidth entirely exhausted.

3. There has been no indication that Verizon actually intends to control the content that flows through their phones, simply that they intend to preserve the ability to do so.

I suggest we keep cool heads and wait until we have more information. Remember: when dealing with corporations, voting with your pocketbook is more potent than anything else you can do.

I'd rather news outlets exaggerating this story than companies still wanting to try to control what pages will load faster than others, or control internet content in general.

Either way, just wanted to share for anyone that cared.

At best its a reminder to the FCC that a good number of people still support net neutrality.