Facebook, Ebay, Skype and Amazon say they are opposed to the Google-Verizon agreement about network neutrality, which makes "best effort" access the way broadband will be sold to consumers, but which also exempts wireless networks from the rules and allows application providers to create their own tiered, quality-assured services if they choose.
As part of the deal, Verizon gives up the right to create its own quality of service tiers for broadband access.
But the application providers also seem to object to creation of new managed services that are not classic "Internet access" services, much as a single pipe now supports Internet access, multichannel video services or business services with all sorts of quality assurances.
The area of disagreement seems to involve some differences of of opinion over regulation of networks and services of various types.
Lots of networks these days use IP technology. The public Internet, private business and organizational networks, plus separately-regulated video entertainment services are examples.
Each traditionally have been regulated using entirely different rules and principles, and at least one issue here is which models of regulation are "best," going forward.
The opponents do not want Internet access to regularly be available in a "best effort" and quality-assured or optimized versions. The Google-Verizon compromise preserves the best effort access, but does allow for development of private network or managed services.
One analogy, though many will not like it, is that opponents of the compromise do not want to see creation of a "two-tier" or "multiple-tier" access regime, while proponents of the compromise do not want to foreclose development of new managed services that are more akin to cable TV or private business network services than best-effort Internet access.
