Verizon, Google net-neutrality plan exempts new services

Wireless broadband access would remain largely unregulated under a joint policy proposal offered today by Google Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. The net-neutrality “compromise” offered by the two companies for the most part keeps in mind federal goals, but reserves some yet-to-be-created services that would be treated differently.
The seven principles spelled out by the Internet search giant and the nation’s second-largest telecom company mostly relate to wireline broadband access, including a component that offers nondiscriminatory access to the Internet. “Importantly, this new nondiscrimination principle includes a presumption against prioritization of Internet traffic – including paid prioritization. So, in addition to not blocking or degrading of Internet content and applications, wireline broadband providers also could not favor particular Internet traffic over other traffic,” according to Google’s public policy blog.
Surprisingly, the proposal uses the “competitive” argument to urge regulators to use a light touch in governing the wireless industry. “Sixth, we both recognize that wireless broadband is different from the traditional wireline world, in part because the mobile marketplace is more competitive and changing rapidly. In recognition of the still-nascent nature of the wireless broadband marketplace, under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency requirement.”
The Federal Communications Commission in May ruled that the wireless industry was not competitive, instead finding it concentrated.
The meat of the proposal would allow broadband providers to develop new services with partners, and presumably treat those services differently. Google said some services could include health care monitoring and smart-grid services.
Public-interest groups were quick to denounce the effort, noting that these “managed services” could take up all of the network traffic. “The agreement between Verizon and Google about how to manage Internet traffic is nothing more than a private agreement between two corporate behemoths, and should not be a template or basis for either Congressional or FCC action. It is unenforceable, and does almost nothing to preserve an open Internet,” said Gigi Sohn, president and co-founder of Public Knowledge.
“Most critically, it sacrifices the future of the mobile wireless Internet as this platform becomes more central to the lives of all Americans. Under the Google-Verizon definition of network neutrality, wireless companies would only have to be transparent about their network practices – meaning that they could block any application, content or service so long as they told consumers they were doing so. And while there would be no pay for priority on the best efforts Internet, there are almost no limits on so-called ‘managed services,’ other than that they would need to be ‘distinguishable in purpose and scope,’ from the Internet. Thus, it is conceivable under the agreement that a network provider could devote 90% of its broadband capacity to these priority services and 10% to the best efforts Internet.”
The two companies made media headlines last week when it was reported that the two had reached an agreement on net-neutrality. At the time the two companies denied any such agreement, and later noted this is a joint proposal, not a deal.
FCC Commissioner Michael Copps said it is time for the FCC to make a decision on net-neutrality rules. “Some will claim this announcement moves the discussion forward. That’s one of its many problems. It is time to move a decision forward—a decision to reassert FCC authority over broadband telecommunications, to guarantee an open Internet now and forever, and to put the interests of consumers in front of the interests of giant corporations.”