Is Google and Verizon's Net Neutrality Proposal Socially Responsible Research Paper

Is Google and Verizon's Net Neutrality Proposal Socially Responsible - Research Paper Example (Patel, 2010) In this announcement, Google and Verizon listed three reasons behind their position: â€Å"to preserve the open Internet and the vibrant and innovative markets it supports† â€Å"to protect consumers† â€Å"to promote continued investment in broadband access† (Verizon-Google, 2010) Barbara Van Schewick of Stanford Law School has published a public law paper titled â€Å"Network Neutrality: What a Non-Discrimination Rule Should Look Like† (2010) defining network neutrality as relating to â€Å"the debate over whether governments should establish rules limiting the extent to which network providers can interfere with the applications and content on their networks.† (Van Schewick, 2010) She states that the European Union, the UK, France, Germany and the US are currently evaluating the implementation of net neutrality laws that would either prohibit or permit the carriers to discriminate between web traffic based on source, application, an d other criteria undefined, as well as whether preferred treatment for some web content represents a problem for broadband policy. (Van Schewick, 2010) As there is a generally accepted position validating government interest and regulation of the issue on claims of the â€Å"public good,† net neutrality in this essay will refer primarily to legislative attempts that prohibit content discrimination by carriers and internet service providers. This essay will further analyze the Google-Verizon â€Å"joint policy proposal† by using the standards established by Barbara Van Schewick in â€Å"Network Neutrality: What a Non-Discrimination Rule Should Look Like† (2010) as a reference for an ideal â€Å"public good† legislation, critically analyzing her reasoning and assumptions in the process. In summarizing the position taken by Google and Verizon vs. arguments for the public good, the essay will also consider popular media commentary including tech blogs such as CNET, TechCrunch, Endgadget, and Popular Science as examples of the broader public consensus and IT community viewpoint on these proposals. Finally, the position paper produced by the Electric Frontier Foundation (EFF) will be referenced as an example of the civil libertarian view. In this manner the corporate proposal as advocated by Google and Verizon will be analyzed in the context of mainstream tech community views, the â€Å"public good† legal standard advocated by Stanford Law School, and also from the civil libertarian perspective in constitutional law. This is necessary because the corporate viewpoint claims to be acting on behalf of the â€Å"public good† but may in fact be protecting or furthering the interests of company profit over other issues that are important to a pluralistic society. Consumer Protections: â€Å"A broadband Internet access service provider would be prohibited from preventing users of its broadband Internet access service from— (1) sending and receiving lawful content of their choice; (2) running lawful applications and using lawful services of their choice; and (3) connecting their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network or service, facilitate theft of service, or harm other users of the service.† (Verizon-Google, 2010) The use of the term â€Å"lawful† repeatedly in this first section highlights one of the main issues under contention, which is that Google, Verizon, and