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

Is Google and Verizons Net neutrality Proposal Socially liable - Research Paper Example(Patel, 2010) In this announcement, Google and Verizon listed three reasons behind their position to preserve the open lucre and the vibrant and innovative markets it supports to protect consumers to promote continued investment in broadband access (Verizon-Google, 2010) Barbara caravan Schewick of Stanford Law School has published a mankind law paper titled Network Neutrality What a Non-Discrimination Rule Should Look Like (2010) defining entanglement neutrality as relating to the debate oer whether governments should establish rules limiting the extent to which network providers can interfere with the applications and capacitance 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 steal between web traffic based on source, application, and other criteria undefined, as well as whether like 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 humans beneficial, net neutrality in this essay result refer primarily to legislative attempts that prohibit content discrimination by carriers and internet service providers. This essay will further analyze the Google-Verizon joint policy proposal by using the standards established by Barbara Van Schewick in Network Neutrality What a Non-Discrimination Rule Should Look Like (2010) as a reference for an ideal 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 likewise 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 public good legal standard advocated by Stanford Law School, and also from the civil libertarian perspective in constitutional law. This is needed because the corporate viewpoint claims to be acting on behalf of the public good but may in fact be protecting or furthering the interests of company profit over other issues that are pregnant to a pluralistic society. Consumer Protections A broadband Internet access service provider would be out(p) from preventing users of its broadband Internet access service from (1) sending and receiving licit content of their choice (2) runnin g 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 lawful repeatedly in this first section highlights one of the main issues under contention, which is that Google, Verizon, and