AAPL Stock: 118.03 ( -0.85 )

Printed from

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 MacNN Staff



  1. TujuMaster

    Joined: Dec 1969


    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

    Joined: Dec 1969


    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

    Joined: Dec 1969


    It's easier to

    buy off the regulatory bodies through campaign contributions/other.

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

  1. testudo

    Joined: Dec 1969


    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

    Joined: Dec 1969


    Anakin Skywalker...

    wasn't evil in the beginning either.

  1. zunipus

    Joined: Dec 1969




Login Here

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


Network Headlines

Follow us on Facebook


Most Popular


Recent Reviews

Ultimate Ears Megaboom Bluetooth Speaker

Ultimate Ears (now owned by Logitech) has found great success in the marketplace with its "Boom" series of Bluetooth speakers, a mod ...

Kinivo URBN Premium Bluetooth Headphones

We love music, and we're willing to bet that you do, too. If you're like us, you probably spend a good portion of your time wearing ...

Jamstik+ MIDI Controller

For a long time the MIDI world has been dominated by keyboard-inspired controllers. Times are changing however, and we are slowly star ...


Most Commented