Printed from http://www.electronista.com

Google and Verizon propose neutrality rules, exempt wireless

updated 03:00 pm EDT, Mon August 9, 2010

Google to sacrifice wireless for neutrality win

Google and Verizon this afternoon outlined their widely rumored proposal for net neutrality guidelines. As expected, the terms would focus on wired controls but would sacrifice fairness in wireless to reach the goal. The FCC would be the only official body and would have authority to ban both blocking or throttling legal traffic as well as limit prioritization of certain content, but only on wired networks.

Both wired and wireless networks would have a requirement for transparency, which would require any carrier to clearly disclose how it shapes traffic and other limits on the network. Wired services could have special services such as IPTV, but these would have to be clearly separated from general Internet access so they aren't used as forms of cheating the neutrality rules, the two companies said.

The Universal Service Fund would, as proposed by the FCC, be converted from wired phones to broadband.

Google justified the exception of cellular networks by describing wireless data as a "still-nascent" business, whose circumstances are "more competitive and changing rapidly" compared to the entrenched wired environment. It did promise that the Government Accountability Office, in this interpretation, would have to report to Congress every year on whether current measures are properly protecting customers.

The statements are likely to draw controversy if, as accepted, they would give carriers like Verizon free rein to discriminate against legitimate service that would compete with its own services. It would have legal support for banning VoIP to force customers to use its own cellular minutes, for example, or prevent streaming Internet video from a third party in favor of a paid subscription to its own plans. Verizon has been willing to use more open platforms such as Android but has already neutered functionality by preventing Skype calls over 3G.

Google's motivations behind the deal have already been called into question. The search firm is heavily dependent on Verizon for Android phone sales and would stand to lose significant market share and mobile ad revenue if its carrier partner backed away.

The proposal isn't binding and may face opposition from the FCC itself. Chairman Julius Genachowski has said that Google and Verizon suggestions wouldn't necessarily influence policy as he was concerned about preserving net neutrality regardless of what either company thought was best.



By Electronista Staff
toggle

Comments

  1. TujuMaster

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Nov 2009

    +12

    Am I the only one scared...

    Am I the only one scared that two major companies are trying to dictate net "neutrality?" I'm not trying to sound like a paranoid nut but is this really such a good idea?

  1. hayesk

    Professional Poster

    Joined: Sep 1999

    +10

    Here's suggestion:

    Just sell me an internet connection and let me decide how I want to use it. Charge me an appropriate amount so you can take a reasonable profit, and re-invest the rest in infrastructure upgrades to grow capacity as necessary.

    Is that so hard?

  1. Flying Meat

    Dedicated MacNNer

    Joined: Jan 2007

    +2

    It's easier to

    buy off the regulatory bodies through campaign contributions/other.

    Fox guarding the chickens. Don't count your chickens.

  1. testudo

    Forum Regular

    Joined: Aug 2001

    +4

    Re: Here's a suggestion

    Charge me an appropriate amount so you can take a reasonable profit

    Who decides what is an appropriate amount? Is it unlimited, or are there restrictions for the price (say 20GB)? Who decides how much different tiers cost, or should everyone just get on one tier, high-speed fast?

    And who decides what's a reasonable profit?

    , and re-invest the rest in infrastructure upgrades to grow capacity as necessary.

    The rest? What constitutes the rest? The 'rest' is the non-profit part. But, by definition, the non-profit part goes to cover costs. (Profit = Revenue - Costs). So there is no rest.

    Or do you want them to charge you for cost plus profit plus infrastructure improvements?

    Because that's how the cable companies paid for their infrastructure improvements. They basically billed the current customers. Then, when finished, they charged them again in order to use the new capabilities. And then they go off and make changes to their 'tiers', pushing all the 'good' stuff onto the digital channels, so they can up-sell people to more expensive services.

    And we all know how much we love the cable companies for doing all this now!

  1. brainiac

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Sep 2003

    +2

    Anakin Skywalker...

    wasn't evil in the beginning either.

  1. zunipus

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Feb 2007

    +1

    GOOGLE EVIL

    VERIZON EVIL

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.

toggle

Network Headlines

toggle

Most Popular

Sponsor

Recent Reviews

Crucial MX100 256GB SATA-3 SSD

While the price to gigabyte ratio for magnetic platter-based hard drives can't be beat, the speed that a SSD brings to the table for a ...

Narrative Clip

With the advent of social media technology, people have been searching for new ways to share the events of their daily lives -- be it ...

Blue's Mikey Digital

Blue Microphones, a company that makes some of the most popular digital USB microphones among podcasters and musicians, has for some t ...

Sponsor

toggle

Most Commented

 
toggle

Popular News