It's tough not to get myself worked up when I read things like the recent Google-Verizon proposal for a framework around network neutrality. Invariably, it feels like power is amassing to limit freedom, and that tends to cause people to run around like their hair is on fire. Mine included.
The initial emotional response appears to be that Google has been on a long path of selling-out to corporate partners, even though experience may be saying something else. This is a reflection of cognitive dissonance as in general, Google has done good, smart things for this industry. If there's anyone I'd like to see at the table discussing net neutrality, it's probably them.
Time will tell. A wise man once said, "I'm not cheap, but I can be bought."
The EFF has posted their response, and their hair is not yet on fire at this point. That's a good thing, because it makes the issue far easier to parse. If you haven't read the full statement, you should. And then you should read Cindy Cohn's well-though response.
On Monday, Google and Verizon proposed a new legislative framework for net neutrality. Reaction to the proposal has been swift and, for the most part, highly critical. While we agree with many aspects of that criticism, we are interested in the framework's attempt to grapple with the Trojan Horse problem. The proposed solution: a narrow grant of power to the FCC to enforce neutrality within carefully specified parameters. While this solution is not without its own substantial dangers, we think it deserves to be considered further if Congress decides to legislate.