I think the real intention of this policy recommendation is to protect these companies cash cows from pure voip.

If wireless broadband became as cheap as wired, who would need existing mobile or land line phone service ? Skype and Google Voice revenue would be threatened as well if nobody needed the existing system.

The demand for regular dsl lines could decrease too except for people who needed home servers.

Here’s an exceptionally remarkable quote taken directly from Google’s policy statement (written, apparently, by the ghost of Alexander Haig).

“Fourth, because of the confusion about the FCC’s authority following the Comcast court decision, our proposal spells out the FCC’s role and authority in the broadband space.”

Not “suggests”, mind you, “spells out”. As in “dictates”. To the US government. So much for diplomacy.

Not content to usurp on a general basis, Google proceeds to get particular… 

“In addition to creating enforceable consumer protection and nondiscrimination standards that go beyond the FCC’s preexisting consumer safeguards, the proposal also provides for a new enforcement mechanism for the FCC to use.”

Again, far less than suitably deferential. And having <strike>proscribed</strike> proposed the role and authority of an Executive Branch agency, and written its governing law, and detailed its approach to enforcement, Google goes for the home run by establishing the upper bound for the fines they’re willing to pay in the very unlikely that a conspicuously captive regulator pursues a now demonstrably unaccountable firm.

“Specifically, the FCC would enforce these openness policies on a case-by-case basis, using a complaint-driven process. The FCC could move swiftly to stop a practice that violates these safeguards, and it could impose a penalty of up to $2 million on bad actors.”

Memo to Google: setting public policy, spelling out the limits of legal authority, designing enforcement mechanisms, determining the scope of due process, and establishing sanctions all fall under the *exclusive* domain of the publicly elected, and those they oversee directly.

The idea of “Government of the people, by a private company, for the benefit of the people to the extent that it coincides with the ambitions of that company” is flagrantly unconstitutional.

I’m serious - just Google it.

I tend to think the weight of the discussion falls to real net neutrality.  I want to hear more of the arguments from the other side.  But the arrogance here displayed by Google and Verizon hardly make me open to their case.

Bowles’s excellent comment bespeaks a kind of corporate arrogance and virtual dictatorship not just infecting Google and Verizon but much of the big American corporate owners towards the constitution, and the common citizens.  But why not?  Corporations (and their lobbyist cohorts)  pretty much own congress and the regulatory agencies and insist, for some reason, on getting their money’s worth.

“...only the transparency principle would apply to wireless broadband at this time.”
At this time all they want is to control wireless, as If wireless isn’t the future of the internet. Just give them an inch…

I’m sorry but, while it is fun to get all indignant about Google preempting FCC authority, this is simply wrong!  It was the previous administrations FCC that gave up the authority by proclaiming that internet services were “information services” and not telecommunications services.  They regulate the latter but not the former.  Google is just trying to reassert some role for the FCC.  I wouldn’t beat them up for that!