Verizon/Google Net Neutrality Proposal

[Dreadnaught]

Google's version of the proposal: http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.c...-internet.html

One conspiracy-ish theory of what this could do: http://io9.com/5610328/how-the-googl...net-in-5-years

More on this debate: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/12/technology/12net.html

Regardless of what you think, what I think is missing from much of the discussion is what I suspect prompted this proposal.

Traditional net-neutrality advocates (Google) were horrified that a court told the FCC it had no legal basis to enforce "net-neutrality" provisions. Anti-neutrality companies (Verizon) were happy at the court decision, but also wary of this becoming a Congressional issue that they would lose once legislation was proposed.

So Google and Verizon seem to be trying to see if they can "compromise" and influence potential legislation towards something in the middle. I think it's remarkably mature and realistic for both companies. But the proposal itself could still suck.

Beyond trying to avoid thinking about this in strictly abstract terms (which I think a lot of commentators are doing), I'm very split and have never had a strong position on net neutrality. Anyone have any thoughts?

[Ominous Gamer]

This is all postering since their dataserver agreement got leaked out in a rather unflattering light. Most of what they support for net-neutrality is technology that frankly won't matter in 5-10 years. They are already trying to carve out net neutrality exceptions for wireless services and whatever they want to consider "additional online services". Not to mention Google has been a big player in opening up TV "white space." The stance they outline is far from net neutrality stands for, its only meant to weaken the effect of the FCC influence in the future.


Even the EFF wasn't impressed by this crappy digital era slight of hand, and neither was Ars technicia

[Illusions]

Radical Idea: I wonder if it would make sense to establish a nation-wide broadband network akin to how the Postal Service operates, and for similar more modern reasons. The USPS was originally established so that the early States and their citizens would have an effective and universal means of communication, which at that time meant via physical hand-delivered media. Perhaps its time to reflect how we've changed in the methods we use to communicate. Likewise the USPS has also shown that it doesn't stifle competition from private companies, as FedEx and UPS still have thriving businesses which focus on special types of parcel delivery.

This system would mean that information could stay free, in that you would not have to pay extra to access carved up parts of the web. All service would be treated equally, a bit coming from youtube.com would cost no more or less than one coming from ebay, amazon, or some random guy's blog. This would also free up Verizon, Comcast, etc. to offer their pay services akin to FedEx or UPS which specialize in shipping items faster, or larger, at an increased cost.

I'm not sure if this really belongs here, if anyone feels it doesn't, just report it and let Dread, Rand, or Wraith know to move it.

[Dreadnaught]

This is all postering since their dataserver agreement got leaked out in a rather unflattering light.

They've been pretty consistent saying there is no dataserver agreement. Last week's NYT story about an "agreement" was so wrong that it pushed Verizon and Google to publish their proposal on Monday so that people would stop speculating about an agreement that doesn't exist.

The stance they outline is far from net neutrality stands for, its only meant to weaken the effect of the FCC influence in the future.

But the FCC was specifically told by a federal court they didn't have the authority to regulate this space in such a manner at all. That's what seemed to have spurred this. Everyone with an interest in this was caught with their pants down, so folks are scrambling to develop/influence a framework.

More broadly, aren't you worried that trying to strictly regulate wireless bandwidth could stifle the industry and potentially just incentivize the carriers to go back to metered usage plans? This industry is very new and developing rapidly —*how can an agency strictly dictated how carriers handle data packets when they barely had these networks a decade ago?

Radical Idea: I wonder if it would make sense to establish a nation-wide broadband network akin to how the Postal Service operates, and for similar more modern reasons. The USPS was originally established so that the early States and their citizens would have an effective and universal means of communication, which at that time meant via physical hand-delivered media. Perhaps its time to reflect how we've changed in the methods we use to communicate. Likewise the USPS has also shown that it doesn't stifle competition from private companies, as FedEx and UPS still have thriving businesses which focus on special types of parcel delivery.

This system would mean that information could stay free, in that you would not have to pay extra to access carved up parts of the web. All service would be treated equally, a bit coming from youtube.com would cost no more or less than one coming from ebay, amazon, or some random guy's blog. This would also free up Verizon, Comcast, etc. to offer their pay services akin to FedEx or UPS which specialize in shipping items faster, or larger, at an increased cost.

I'm not sure if this really belongs here, if anyone feels it doesn't, just report it and let Dread, Rand, or Wraith know to move it.

The Postal Service operates at a consistent, tax-payer-covered loss. The reason there are private competitors is because it's so damn crappy.

[Ominous Gamer]

But the FCC was specifically told by a federal court they didn't have the authority to regulate this space in such a manner at all.

FCC doesn't have the power in the current way the internet is classified, we've already covered that this is could turn out to be a positive. Reclassify internet providers into a category the FCC already has control over.

I'm pretty much against a company trying to influence a framework around something that effects the entire world when their own profits are tied so closely to said framework. The reason is simple, the consumer interest doesn't even enter the equation.

More broadly, aren't you worried that trying to strictly regulate wireless bandwidth could stifle the industry and potentially just incentivize the carriers to go back to metered usage plans?

Isn't that what we're already back into? AT&T may have been the first to tier out their dataplans, but they surely won't be the only one. Verizon is already testing it in certain markets. Not to mention that Comcast has been doing this to broadband for years.

[Dreadnaught]

But you can't reclassify Internet providers into an FCC-mandated category without making a whole new legislative framework. Fact is companies have the right to lobby, especially when their interests are at stake on this issue.

Would you really want someone like Verizon lobbying for the FCC to never have any authority over these issues at all? Or would you rather someone like Google get them to concede some principles (which sorta divides and conquers the telcos in some vague sense).

[Ominous Gamer]

Google didn't get verizon to concede anything of value, if anything Google has finally shown its true colors on net neutrality, using current consumer standards as a farce so they can stick their thumb into the future (and far more important) wireless spectrum without restrictions, an area Verizon is far more profitable in.

The FCC has already begun the process to either reclassify providers as Title II common carriers.

The Postal Service operates at a consistent, tax-payer-covered loss. The reason there are private competitors is because it's so damn crappy.

Thats got to do with how the USPS is designed and run. This hardly implies anything when translating government into an internet provider.
Communites and cities connecting themselves is a huge threat to the current pricing structure and monopolistic feel of the major internet providers. So much so that cities have been sued to stop from laying their own (at cost, similiar to city run water service) copper and fiber networks after not agreeing to the outrageous and often overly exclusive deals internet providers try to push.
It wasn't until after the cities started winning the right to run their own net that the providers even attempted to offer more open and barely comparable models.

[Dreadnaught]

I think you're not appreciating some of the context here, and I think saying that "Google has finally shown its true colors on net neutrality" is sorta overboard.

Google has an immense interest in net neutrality. Who is going to watch a YouTube video or click on an ad if they (or Google) will be charged along some kind of alternative pricing scheme? Google's whole business and development model would be crushed.

The FCC can try to reclassify things however it wants, but the court case it lost made it very clear that they couldn't impose net neutrality as it thought it could. Verizon could have walked up to Google the next day and demanded payment for bandwidth used by YouTube. For all we know, Verizon did just that.

Parsing this blog post they, made, I have to wonder if that's the case. And, like any realistic company, they had to compromise and take an unpopular position for the sake of not having their services held hostage to a very unclear legislative environment.

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/...eutrality.html

Facts about our network neutrality policy proposal
8/12/2010 10:57:00 AM
Cross-posted on our Public Policy Blog.

Over the past few days there’s been a lot of discussion surrounding our announcement of a policy proposal on network neutrality we put together with Verizon. On balance, we believe this proposal represents real progress on what has become a very contentious issue, and we think it could help move the network neutrality debate forward constructively.

We don’t expect everyone to agree with every aspect of our proposal, but there has been a number of inaccuracies about it, and we do want to separate fact from fiction.

MYTH: Google has “sold out” on network neutrality.

FACT: Google has been the leading corporate voice on the issue of network neutrality over the past five years. No other company is working as tirelessly for an open Internet.

But given political realities, this particular issue has been intractable in Washington for several years now. At this time there are no enforceable protections – at the Federal Communications Commission or anywhere else – against even the worst forms of carrier discrimination against Internet traffic.

With that in mind, we decided to partner with a major broadband provider on the best policy solution we could devise together. We’re not saying this solution is perfect, but we believe that a proposal that locks in key enforceable protections for consumers is preferable to no protection at all.

MYTH: This proposal represents a step backwards for the open Internet.

FACT: If adopted, this proposal would for the first time give the FCC the ability to preserve the open Internet through enforceable rules on broadband providers. At the same time, the FCC would be prohibited from imposing regulations on the Internet itself.

Here are some of the tangible benefits in our joint legislative proposal:

+Newly enforceable FCC standards
+Prohibitions against blocking or degrading wireline Internet traffic
+Prohibition against discriminating against wireline Internet traffic in ways that harm users or competition
+Presumption against all forms of prioritizing wireline Internet traffic
+Full transparency across wireline and wireless broadband platforms
+Clear FCC authority to adjudicate user complaints, and impose injunctions and fines against bad actors
+Verizon has agreed to voluntarily abide by these same requirements going forward – another first for a major communications provider. We hope this action will convince other broadband companies to follow suit.

MYTH: This proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless.

FACT: It’s true that Google previously has advocated for certain openness safeguards to be applied in a similar fashion to what would be applied to wireline services. However, in the spirit of compromise, we have agreed to a proposal that allows this market to remain free from regulation for now, while Congress keeps a watchful eye.

Why? First, the wireless market is more competitive than the wireline market, given that consumers typically have more than just two providers to choose from. Second, because wireless networks employ airwaves, rather than wires, and share constrained capacity among many users, these carriers need to manage their networks more actively. Third, network and device openness is now beginning to take off as a significant business model in this space.

In our proposal, we agreed that the best first step is for wireless providers to be fully transparent with users about how network traffic is managed to avoid congestion, or prioritized for certain applications and content. Our proposal also asks the Federal government to monitor and report regularly on the state of the wireless broadband market. Importantly, Congress would always have the ability to step in and impose new safeguards on wireless broadband providers to protect consumers’ interests.

It’s also important to keep in mind that the future of wireless broadband increasingly will be found in the advanced, 4th generation (4G) networks now being constructed. Verizon will begin rolling out its 4G network this fall under openness license conditions that Google helped persuade the FCC to adopt. Clearwire is already providing 4G service in some markets, operating under a unique wholesale/openness business model. So consumers across the country are beginning to experience open Internet wireless platforms, which we hope will be enhanced and encouraged by our transparency proposal.

MYTH: This proposal will allow broadband providers to “cannibalize” the public Internet.

FACT: Another aspect of the joint proposal would allow broadband providers to offer certain specialized services to customers, services which are not part of the Internet. So, for example, broadband providers could offer a special gaming channel, or a more secure banking service, or a home health monitoring capability – so long as such offerings are separate and apart from the public Internet. Some broadband providers already offer these types of services today. The chief challenge is to let consumers benefit from these non-Internet services, without allowing them to impede on the Internet itself.

We have a number of key protections in the proposal to protect the public Internet:
+ First, the broadband provider must fully comply with the consumer protection and nondiscrimination standards governing its Internet access service before it could pursue any of these other online service opportunities.
+ Second, these services must be “distinguishable in purpose and scope” from Internet access, so that they cannot over time supplant the best effort Internet.
+ Third, the FCC retains its full capacity to monitor these various service offerings, and to intervene where necessary to ensure that robust, unfettered broadband capacity is allocated to Internet access.
So we believe there would be more than adequate tools in place to help guard against the “cannibalization” of the public Internet.

MYTH: Google is working with Verizon on this because of Android.

FACT: This is a policy proposal – not a business deal. Of course, Google has a close business relationship with Verizon, but ultimately this proposal has nothing to do with Android. Folks certainly should not be surprised by the announcement of this proposal, given our prior public policy work with Verizon on network neutrality, going back to our October 2009 blog post, our January 2010 joint FCC filing, and our April 2010 op-ed.

MYTH: Two corporations legislating the future of the Internet.

FACT: Our two companies are proposing a legislative framework to the Congress for its consideration. We hope all stakeholders will weigh in and help shape the framework to move us all forward. We’re not so presumptuous to think that any two businesses could – or should – decide the future of this issue. We’re simply trying to offer a proposal to help resolve a debate which has largely stagnated after five years.

It’s up to Congress, the FCC, other policymakers – and the American public – to take it from here. Whether you favor our proposal or not, we urge you to take your views directly to your Senators and Representatives in Washington.

We hope this helps address some of the inaccuracies that have appeared about our proposal. We’ll provide updates as the situation continues to develop.

Posted by Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel

Sorta surprised no one else has any thoughts/opinions about this.

[agamemnus]

Users should choose what content, applications, or devices they use, since openness has been central to the explosive innovation that has made the Internet a transformative medium.

I don't know if the Google lawyers thought about this but..

Complete implementation (as stated above) of Google's proposal would run directly counter to the big movie studios', Microsoft's, Sony's, and Nintendo's business models when it comes to games, movies, and music. Essentially, Google is saying that it wants to make into law the idea that content should not be restricted to a platform. That means someone downloading a PC video game could have a defense of "this is a backup for my PS3 video game... why should I have to play it on the PS3 when I can play it on my PC?".

Large movie and game studios are going in the opposite direction and more and more are trying to get customers to buy multiple versions of the same content... basically legalized thievery, and the law is currently on their side.

[Dreadnaught]

I think the idea is that any device can connect to the Internet if that's what people want it to do. Granted it's 5AM in NY and I'm heading to a flight, but I don't quite follow how this will specifically increase piracy.

[Ominous Gamer]

I think you're not appreciating some of the context here, and I think saying that "Google has finally shown its true colors on net neutrality" is sorta overboard.

Google has an immense interest in net neutrality. Who is going to watch a YouTube video or click on an ad if they (or Google) will be charged along some kind of alternative pricing scheme? Google's whole business and development model would be crushed.

You're still thinking short term and small fries. Youtube isn't all there is to Google. Youtube, in its current form isn't even what Google wants Youtube to become. This is where their flip on net neutrality plays a big part. Streaming media is going to have a huge impact on wireless providers and subscriptions. Google is both increasing its steaming presence, and as already covered is pushing hard to get into the wireless spectrum. Google is also breaking into the upper level of in home fiber internet connections. When does the internet stop being 3 minute music videos and start pushing into "additional online services" like IMAX quality streaming? They are protecting their future business plan, at the expense of net neutrality. If you provide the content, and the connection, its smart business to make sure your shit gets top priority.
Spinning off of that, Google's size and popularity alone has helped stop other companies from trying to charge special pricing schemes. All Google needs is one major player to try it, Google gets to turn it down, and if the provider doesn't back down, Google goes dark for them. Thats not going to crush Google's business. Thats going to create the largest media shit storm and PR disaster the internet has ever seen. You'll have subscribers jumping ship, you're have webmasters blocking those provider's customers because AdSense wouldn't load. Google comes out the victim, and as such is going to get a nice shiny front row seat into shaping the net neutrality rulings/laws/oversight. FCC can't do anything now, but thats already being changed. A move like you are describing would be like a birthday, christmas, and anniversary present all rolled into one for the FCC. No provider is going to risk cutting off its customers from accessing the rescources of a giant like Google.
Verizon already tried something similiar with its mobile service, hoping to charge places like twitter for every text that was sent to their network. That ended up blowing up in their face.


This agreement doesn't do anything for net neutrality, its more like a framework that Google is hoping to use to clear the road in its future business endeavors.

[Illusions]

I'd be more worried about how many people and businesses are entrenched in the free services that Google provides (Google Docs, Gmail, Gtalk/Cchat, Google Voice, etc.) and the massive shitstorm that would result if one day Google decided that we'd have to pay for them.

[Ominous Gamer]

Almost missed this Wired article that has them joining the EFF and Ars technicia on smelling the bullshit: Why Google Became A Carrier-Humping, Net Neutrality Surrender Monkey.

I'd be more worried about how many people and businesses are entrenched in the free services that Google provides (Google Docs, Gmail, Gtalk/Cchat, Google Voice, etc.) and the massive shitstorm that would result if one day Google decided that we'd have to pay for them.

I don't see that happening for a very long time, if it ever comes about. Google is still dealing with infighting on how much of our personal information they should be profiting from.

[agamemnus]

I think the idea is that any device can connect to the Internet if that's what people want it to do. Granted it's 5AM in NY and I'm heading to a flight, but I don't quite follow how this will specifically increase piracy.

They didn't say "Users should choose what content, applications, or devices they use to connect to the internet", they said "Users should choose what content, applications, or devices they use", full stop. That's a huge difference.

It wouldn't only increase piracy, but it would theoretically allow users to, for instance, download legally Mass Effect 2 on the PC when they had only bought it on the XBox 360. That would be "choosing" "what devices they use".