Google, Verizon collaborate on net neutrailty proposal

Engadget has the goods on a net neutrality legal framework proposed by Google and Verizon. Google’s Public Policy Blog lays out seven key elements of the proposal, the first two of which I’ve quoted below.

First, both companies have long been proponents of the FCC’s current wireline broadband openness principles, which ensure that consumers have access to all legal content on the Internet, and can use what applications, services, and devices they choose. The enforceability of those principles was called into serious question by the recent Comcast court decision. Our proposal would now make those principles fully enforceable at the FCC.

Second, we agree that in addition to these existing principles there should be a new, enforceable prohibition against discriminatory practices. This means that for the first time, wireline broadband providers would not be able to discriminate against or prioritize lawful Internet content, applications or services in a way that causes harm to users or competition.

ISPs would be permitted to engage in "reasonable network management," of course, but they must do so in accordance with "best practices adopted by an independent, widely-recognized Internet community governance initiative or standard-setting organization." Fair enough.

Despite what looks like a generally pro-consumer set of principles, the framework makes an exception for wireless broadband services. Google and Verizon argue that this fast-changing market is more competitive than the world of wired broadband, and that only their transparency principle should apply, at least for now. Transparency requires that ISPs provide "accurate and relevant information in plain language" about the services they offer. The US Government Accountability Office would then be charged with monitoring whether wireless consumers are being sufficiently protected by existing policies.

Comments closed
    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 9 years ago

    So wait Google wasn’t planning to take over the world and sell all your info to china, and aid in the communist take over of the western nations?

    I know all the rumors where saying this conversation those two where having was all about Google getting band width priority, no one expected a pro neutrality policy to come from it.

    please correct me if this is not the doomsday scenario predicted earlier this week.

      • MadManOriginal
      • 9 years ago

      I don’t know what kind of nutty cnoversations you were reading but Google has always been pro-net neutrality. Of course it was always self-serving, they are a content provider and it’s beneficial for them to have real net neutrality in place – they wouldn’t want ISPs expecting them to pay extra for Youtube delivery or of course ads for example. Perhaps their entrance in to the smartphone market has muddled that up a little though.

    • Game_boy
    • 9 years ago

    The proposals don’t apply to “private” networks. Even if they are run as virtual ones over the existing internet infrastructure.

    So Google can pay Verizon to prioritise their traffic over the Internet as long as they claim it’s a private network (“additional online services”). It will still slow down other Internet traffic of course.

    In other words this is the exact opposite of a net neutrality proposal.

    • shank15217
    • 9 years ago

    Whatever, your wild free west never really existed. As features evolve they get regulated, that’s society for you.

    • MadManOriginal
    • 9 years ago

    It’s rather sad that they want to attempt to exclude wireless service since that is the exact area of oversight the FCC was given as a successor to the FRC. I’m sure that in the Corporate States of America what’s best for the people and the ‘public’ airwaves will win out though!

    • Ryhadar
    • 9 years ago

    Regardless if this proposed framework is pro-consumer or not I get very anxious about corporations messing with the direction of the Internet. It’s /[

      • blastdoor
      • 9 years ago

      What makes you think that? Just because your tax dollars funded the design and creation of the Internet? Silly you.

        • kvndoom
        • 9 years ago

        l[< #8, What makes you think that? Just because your tax dollars funded the design and creation of the Internet? Silly you. <]l Or that we pay money every month to be able to access it? What the hell were we /[

    • MuParadigm
    • 9 years ago

    [italic]ISPs would be permitted to engage in ‘reasonable network management,’ of course, but they must do so in accordance with ‘best practices adopted by an independent, widely-recognized Internet community governance initiative or standard-setting organization.’ Fair enough.[/italic]

    Not really. The “reasonable network management” standard is so weak that, for instance, Comcast would have no problem continuing its bittorrent throttling.

    .

      • random_task
      • 9 years ago

      From the Google blog post:

      q[

        • Cuhulin
        • 9 years ago

        It may seem that way to you, but the exceptions override the statement. Wireless is completely exempt, and the nicely phrased “differentiated services” would allow all the favored traffic through nicely while only the remainder is limited.

          • random_task
          • 9 years ago

          Wireless being exempt makes some amount of sense, as wireless is relatively bandwidth limited. If someone is downloading a torrent though their phone, and I’m trying to check my email, I’m perfectly fine with the torrent being rate limited to keep the network flowing. Keep in mind that the person being limited knew that he was going to be limited (because of the parts in there about transparency). If the person being limited doesn’t like it, they can switch to a different network (or use a wired connection).

          As for the “differentiated services”, I don’t really see how this is a problem. If some carrier wants to make a private, closed off network, I don’t see the problem. If I didn’t have the option to switch carriers, I’d have a problem. There’s actual competition in the wireless space though, so it’s not really a problem as far as I can tell.

            • glynor
            • 9 years ago

            Your argument is invalid. Most consumers, especially those using wireless data plans, do NOT have the option to switch carriers.

            They want to protect their bogus text messaging plan revenue (from IM), their bogus per-minute rates (from VOIP), and their planned high-cost video and music delivery services (from the rest of the Internet).

            Wireless is the future. And they plan to destroy the free market protections by making sure we are all in never-ending 2-3 year locked-in plans, with astronomical ETF costs, and network-locked hardware. It is nothing short of a nearly-complete end run around network neutrality, authorized by Google.

          • JrezIN
          • 9 years ago

          I’m also disappointed with a so weak proposal… the basic problems rely on the reasonable network management and, oh noes, the except for wireless providers… basically, it’s more like publicity stunt them a real network neutrality proposal.
          Google just showed it’s face for slapping here, it’s clear that all those exceptions show Verizon’s own interests.
          bad, bad google!

    • blastdoor
    • 9 years ago

    If google is involved then I’m sure everything will turn out great. Their corporate motto is even “do no evil” — Who other than someone genuinely opposed to evil would pick that as their motto? I mean, to claim that as your motto when in fact you intend the opposite would be….well, help me out here guys, can anyone think of a word to describe such a thing?

      • l33t-g4m3r
      • 9 years ago

      Irony. But it’s closer to doublespeak, since it’s deliberate.
      Google is partnered with the CIA/NSA to basically take over the Internet and eliminate privacy.
      The ultimate goal is real time monitoring of all net-citizens coupled with predictive analytics.
      §[<http://www.infowars.com/google-and-cia-plough-millions-into-huge-recorded-future-monitoring-project/<]§ We're moving toward an Orwellian future. "Do no evil" is a lie.

        • blastdoor
        • 9 years ago

        But the cake is real, right? Cuz I like cake…

        • sweatshopking
        • 9 years ago

        yah but, they make it super easy for millions of people to find pictures of boobs. If anything was worth it, certainly nude girls is a justified reason. Right…?

      • moog
      • 9 years ago

      That would be evil.

    • l33t-g4m3r
    • 9 years ago

    How about doing away with download caps.

    • Cuhulin
    • 9 years ago

    Yeah, right!

    The four wireless providers, who barely compete with each other any more (witness how they moved in lockstep recently to raise ETF’s) should be excepted from the rules, which would put a burden on landlines, but not on Verizon’s own business!

    What an absolutely utter fraud!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This