This uninspired document has led to an interesting debate about content, wireless, and the future of broadband.

I love the irony: The Net Neutrality Debate is a debate in which virtually no one can stay neutral. We're all picking sides. Now that Google and Verizon tried to step in (with a new Legislative Framework Proposal) and guide us all to a theoretically better place, many have chosen to stand on the opposite side of these two giant companies.

I was on vacation when this story broke. I watched it all somewhat removed. I'd step into Disney World's Animal Kingdom Park, check my phone, and see that Google and Verizon had cooked upwithout anyone really asking them toa possible solution for the Net Neutrality conundrum. In a nutshell, the regular broadband world would remain neutral (with some fuzzy exceptions) to all online traffic, but the cellular wireless broadband environment would not.

I'll be honest, when I first read the proposal, I wasn't shocked or outraged. I've had numerous conversations with our Mobile Expert Sascha Segan who has explained the fundamental limitations of most cellular wireless networks, networks which were never built to handle broadband Internet access. This dialog was usually in response to my complaint that broadband data plans are too expensive. Segan told me that if they were too cheap and everyone signed on, it would cripple the networks. This was some years ago, and now I'm watching his vision come true. The new 4G networks should be better equipped to handle the load, but 4G is far from ubiquitous, and typical 3G networks, which everyone seems to find a way to afford, are showing signs of strain.

Google and Verizon, which both have a serious stake in the future of broadband (wired and wireless), appeared to offer a reasonable proposal. But as I boarded Toy Story Mania at Disney's Hollywood Studios (you don 3D glasses and shoot virtual 3D targets), I saw numerous reports and commentary calling the plan evil. By the time I made it to Space Mountain, there were actually physical protests against the proposal. People were picketing a proposal. What would they do if it became a plan?

I don't know if Google and Verizon are doing something evil. AT&T has thrown its support behind the plan. Does that make it more evil?

Broadband as a Right

Based on a survey I did a while ago, I know most people believe broadband Internet access should be a right, not a privilege. Certainly, Internet access has to be a right, but I don't know if our rights can extend to guaranteeing a certain level of service (which is what we mean by "broadband"). Access to information is critical for the progress and betterment of society. On the other hand, access to the Internet is not free. It's still provided by countless private companies paying for servers, land lines, backbones, and towers. These companies are making money, but the public's need for access-anywhere data is growing fast. To support it, companies like Google, AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, and others have to support their existing infrastructure as well as build out new ones (like 4G networks). That costs money, too.

One school of thought on the plan the freely available, or neutral, Internet will become a wasteland of dull PBS-like educational information for both cellular and land-line broadband. All of the entertainment and action (games, video, big downloads, social interaction, etc.) will be moved up to the managed Internet where you can pay more for clear, fast, unfettered access.

That's clearly the darkest view of Google and Verizon's intentions and I don't think I'm buying.

Let's try to separate this argument into two parts: There's the health and development of the networks and then there is the content.

On the network side, we have land-line cable, DSL, satellite, and fiber networks. The best of these services still do not blanket the entire country, but we're getting there. In the cellular broadband space, we have giants like AT&T and Verizon that fear a rich, media-devouring populace living on their networks. I don't see 3G supporting the same level of desktop media we've come to enjoy. The newer 4G can definitely hack it, but it remains a pipedream for most people. And what happens if any portion of existing file-sharing activity moves to the wireless Web? Even 4G could be crippled if a BitTorrent army decides broadband wireless is the new file-sharing frontier. If you read the proposal, you'll notice the repeated use of the word "lawful." It's obviously a veiled reference to all illegal file-sharing activities.

On the content side, we have the promise of the Internet as a delivery mechanism for every kind of content. In general, the companies creating online content are not the same ones running the networks (ISPs). Google, however, is one of the few trying to do both (You have heard about its fiber initiative, haven't you?). If Google were, in fact, making anything other than proposals, this would be a clear red flag. Those who manage both the content and transport mechanism could have simply too much private interest to deliver a plan that keeps the public's interests intact. Those who think Google is evil ("they're tracking our activities and selling our data!") are clearly piling this new plan atop that already dim view. There's no way a company that makes money connecting our personal searches with advertising pitches could have anyone's best interests in mind. Verizon doesn't make or deliver content, per se, but it's a network with a delivery mechanism. The thinking is that it can't be trusted either. These networks could, the argument goes, operate like cable networks and charge sites to be on their networks and then turn around and charge you for the best Internet content.

Cash for Content

The reality is that with or without this proposaland even with Net Neutralitywhat could really stop ISPs from charging for "premium" content? They already charge for higher connection speeds, which, essentially, give you access to a better Internet experience, along with the pleasure of watching HD-level Netflix streaming movies. Dial-up and DSL can't hack that. Networks and cable companies are moving more video, streaming live and on-demand online. Essentially, the cable business is merging with online. In 10 years, we may no longer be able to tell the difference between the two.

I know the wireless exemption is a big bone of contention for everyone, but its inclusion here is simply an admission that no one has a good answer. Saying everything should flow onto the cellular broadband network unfettereddamn the consequencesis naïve. The "leave it aside" proposal is, however, a bit juvenile.

The problem is the document doesn't read like a manifesto. It's dull, plodding, and overly earnest. It's like a bunch of 14 year olds got together and said, "We're gonna work out this Net Neutrality thing and make it A-OK for everyone". All that stuff about what the FCC will and won't do is a bit ridiculous. The FCC knows what it can and can't do, doesn't it?

In other words, what exactly are we protesting here? The existing cellular broadband network is a sometimes spotty and even fragile thing. Our demand for total broadband freedom at all costs seems, at least to me, ill-considered or possibly ill-informed. The Google Verizon plan, a direct response to the FCC's "," is not ruling out the possibility of an unfettered cellular broadband network in the future. It's realistic. The platform is still developing, and our use of it is actually growing faster than the developments necessary to support our voracious mobile broadband demands.

Like the FCC's Third Way Net Neutrality plan, there's a lot of play in this proposal. It doesn't define exactly what kinds of special services might be excluded, and I guess that amount of play can lead to trouble, as well as all sorts of hidden, nefarious plans that could take the open Internet out of the hands of the people and deliver it into the greedy paws of big corporations like Google, Verizon, and AT&T.

Even if Google and Verizon are 100 percent wrong, what they're offering is just a proposal with an unfortunate title (Why did they have to call it a "Legislative Framework?"). The FCC can choose to ignore it. However, I don't think it will nor should it. As I boarded Disney Hollywood Studio's Tower of Terror, I realized that everyone with a vested interest in Net Neutrality should have their say, and those who are willing to come up with possible solutions should be applauded for trying, even if their ideas are wrong or scary.