Google Says Any Neutrality Laws Better Than Nothing -- But Not So

Google's attempt to defend its neutrality pact with Verizon is being met with widespread skepticism -- and with good reason.

Google's telecom counsel Richard Whitt argues in a blog post that some neutrality regulations -- any regulations -- would be better than nothing, which is what we have now. But Whitt is wrong. New laws that explicitly allow broadband providers to charge companies for faster carriage -- which Google and Verizon are proposing -- would be worse for consumers and entrepreneurs than the status quo.

First, it's not true that consumers currently lack all protection from Internet service providers' whims. For one thing, subscribers still have their contracts with ISPs -- and companies that violate those contracts by, say, preventing users from using lawful applications, can face lawsuits, as occurred when Comcast throttled peer-to-peer traffic.

Secondly, the Federal Trade Commission appears to have the power to intervene if ISPs falsely advertise their services. And, while the Federal Communications Commission currently lacks authority to enforce neutrality rules, that situation might soon change.

The FCC is currently considering reclassifying broadband access as a telecommunications service, in which case the agency could apply some common carrier rules to broadband providers. Additionally, Congress can pass new laws. As long as the FCC and Congress are even mulling new laws, Internet service providers seem to have an incentive to refrain from degrading or prioritizing certain content. But the Google-Verizon proposal gives ISPs a big incentive to start discriminating.