TR Editors' blog

What Google and Verizon Were Really Up To

The companies release a proposal for legislation supporting an open Internet--with one big loophole.

Erica Naone 08/09/2010

  • 5 Comments

Google and Verizon have released a joint proposal for legislation supporting an open Internet, refuting claims that the two companies were working on a deal that would let Google pay Verizon for special treatment for its content.

The companies laid out seven major points that they hoped the legislation would address. Many were aimed at issues relating to net neutrality.

In particular, the companies say their proposed legislation would forbid the type of agreement they were accused of making:

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.

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.

The proposed legislation would include a proviso that broadband providers could offer "additional, differentiated online services," possibly including "health care monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services, or new entertainment and gaming options." They note that protections would be in place to make sure these services weren't used to get around net neutrality laws.

However, it still sounds like the companies are leaving a loophole. As the companies write:

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. In addition, the Government Accountability Office would be required to report to Congress annually on developments in the wireless broadband marketplace, and whether or not current policies are working to protect consumers.

It sounds like things are being left open so that wireless carriers could still manipulate traffic, though the proposal states that carriers should be monitored and it should be easy for consumers to find out what's going on.

Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

Neve

1 Comment

  • 548 Days Ago
  • 08/09/2010

...wireless carriers could still manipulate traffic...

Exactly. And everything's going wireless.
It's a shrewd move, they get points for that!
But the agreement definitely does not promote an open internet.

Reply

dtutelman

117 Comments

  • 547 Days Ago
  • 08/10/2010

Why not look at a real solution?

I will make the presumption that these two organizations have some very good technical capabilities -- that it isn't just lawyers involved in working the problem. Given that, it seems to me that it would be possible to characterize traffic so that "net neutrality" means "no favoritism", but does not imply that you can't be charged for excessive use of bandwidth.

Yes, the real problem going forward will be wireless. And, in the foreseeable future, wireless bandwidth (at least for wideband) will be a more scarce resource -- and thus more expensive -- than wired or fiber bandwidth. But it should be possible to characterize any digital traffic to reflect its strain on this bandwidth limit. Overall bit rate plus some easily defined and measured burstiness? Maybe have to add other parameters? OK, do it.

That way, it is possible to charge for the load the service puts on the Internet. Verizon would not be able to charge more for someone else's version of a service Verizon provides, not if they use bandwidth in the same way.

And that is what "net neutrality" should be about. Not some misguided notion that services that eat bandwidth like mad should be charged the same as those that do not.

Reply

rsanchez1

213 Comments

  • 547 Days Ago
  • 08/10/2010

Re: Why not look at a real solution?

That sounds reasonable.

Reply

waltermontgomery

2 Comments

  • 547 Days Ago
  • 08/10/2010

Wireless Broadband

Wireles broadband is actually pretty inexpensive right now. I pay $55 for 4G wireless broadband at home and it includes unlimited phone service. fasterinternetforless.com

Reply

mattgroom

286 Comments

  • 536 Days Ago
  • 08/21/2010

Google/verizon are idiots...

Idiots or very clever at disguising a scam....

"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."

Google and verizon have some very stupid people you mean!

Diff services do not affect users so they will be able to be used according to this. In fact diff services are required according to this... and ill explain.

If you have 1 pipe going out to a destination and 3 of the same size going in...you could get 3 times more data in than out... what do you do, drop everything? ... NO

Diffservices could instead of policing(dropping packets), shape them or send them out over a longer route.

If you had net neutrality you could have packets just dropped in any order and no rerouting/understanding of transport layer policies.

Please let network experts do the writing of policies, not verizon/google who plainly don't understand how their own or world services work.

If you have (complete) net neutrality youd every every app moving to TCP protocols, where udp is easily the best for todays purposes.

What the policy should state is this, and ill make it quite clear...this is different.

"A user is entitled to the throughput they have purchased, whether this is for peek time or not. A User is guaranteed this right under the 1st amendment and all data exchanges between machines whether a person is at the end or not shall be considered heretowith as speech between said parties. The bandwidth shall be deemed used when the data sent from the originator reaches its destination."

Not difficult hey.

This means that the user can use what ever protocols they like and are guaranteed the bandwidth they purchased. Diffservices can still prioritise traffic in a sensible way as is needed in the internet and companies. It also means any dropped packets are not considered in the bandwidth assessment.

If the provider wishes to drop packets so be it, but where the user is recieving less than his bandwidth entitlement per hour that company is then liable.

Companies would be able to meet a certain percentage of this and where its goes into the unacceptable area they have a time period to add more bandwidth or change service instructions etc. I would personally say that 95% of people must have there requirements met and between 96%-100% the provider has this time to upgrade their infrastructure.

Reply

About

Insights, opinions, and our editors' analysis of the latest in emerging technologies.

Subscribe to the TR Editors' blog RSS Feed

Advertisement
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement