Google and Verizon: The End of Net Neutrality? Not So Fast.

Last Wednesday, the New York Times reported that Google and Verizon Wireless were closing in on a deal that tested the boundaries of the FCC and threatened to drastically change the internet as we have known it. The two titans of their respective industries had reportedly agreed to “speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content’s creators are willing to pay for the privilege” (NY Times 8/4/10).

Theoretically, Verizon could speed up access to content from Google sites like YouTube in return for a fee charged to Google. This would create a division between the average user and the elite who could afford to pay a premium for higher quality service. This story hinted at what would be the fundamental shift that proponents of net neutrality have feared for years. But was the story truly worth the hype?

Both companies vehemently denied the NY Times report, with Google (@GooglePubPolicy) tweeting: “@NYTimes is wrong. We’ve not had any convos with VZN about paying for carriage of our traffic. We remain committed to an open internet.”

Similarly, Verizon Wireless dismissed the story, with a company executive explaining: “The NYT article regarding conversations between Google and Verizon is mistaken.  It fundamentally misunderstands our purpose. As we said in our earlier FCC filing, our goal is an Internet policy framework that ensures openness and accountability, and incorporates specific FCC authority, while maintaining investment and innovation. To suggest this is a business arrangement between our companies is entirely incorrect” on the company’s Public Policy blog.

Google Public Policy

In a joint public policy proposal released on Monday, Google and Verizon announced what they dubbed as a legal framework for potential traffic regulation and quality of service policies. Most importantly, they explicitly insisted upon complete transparency in any regulation of traffic and content distribution. The true core of the controversy surrounding this proposal revolved around the concept of net neutrality and whether or not Google and Verizon had turned their back on their stated desires to maintain a fair and open internet. The newest developments reveal that the policy proposal won’t give net neutrality advocates much ammunition against the two companies when it comes to personal computer broadband use. Wireless broadband connections, however, may be a different story.

The top executives at Google and Verizon attributed the lack of application of this proposal in the mobile sector to the “still-nascent nature of the wireless broadband marketplace”. This has some proponents of net neutrality arguing that the proposal intentionally ignores the future, allowing the companies to forge profitable, non-net neutral alliances as the mobile markets mature down the line.

Verizon Wireless

To date, nothing has been implemented and any legislation is likely to take considerable time to push through Congress. I don’t believe either bigh-profile company would risk violating the trust of their customers or risk exposing their brands to further scrutiny by concealing back door deals for short-term maintenance of public perception. If Google and Verizon are adamant that they are committed to an open internet, we should take their word for it. As they say, actions speak louder than words, and we will ultimately judge this entire situation as it develops and matures.

What are your thoughts about the proposal and about net neutrality in general? Share your opinions with your comments below!

About Michael Dossett

Inactive since Sept. 2011

Posted on August 10, 2010, in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 3 Comments.

  1. I can’t help but feel a little betrayed by Google lately with all of the shenanigans they have been pulling. There is a publicly visible shift occurring in the Google culture that is inherently bad for consumers.

    This always seem to happen when companies reach a certain size, I guess that I just had hoped like many others that Google would be able to keep its naive nature a little longer to keep delivering fast, reliable and quality services.

    • I’ve heard the bearish and bullish cases for Google, and both sides couldn’t ignore several points. The company has no entrepreneurial-minded managers, and even though they are hitting all the right marks with regard to revenue targets and earnings, they can’t deny that 98% of their business is search. They have seemingly failed to diversify (or at least successfully monetize their diverse product lines). The company that could once seemingly do no wrong is now taking heat for several high profile product failures and policy shifts. The company is maturing in the same way that Microsoft did.

      I’ll see how they guide themselves through the next few years before I make a judgment. Thanks for your input, I appreciate it!

      Michael Dossett Sent from my iPhone

  2. Who cares? Money plays, and Google has it. Gotta just live with it I guess.

Share Your Thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: