Google, Verizon propose U.S. net neutrality rules, exception for wireless

OTTAWA—Google Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. proposed a joint policy paper on network neutrality Monday that included a hands-off approach to the “competitive and still developing” world of wireless. Canadian players reacted stridently to the proposal, some questioning the exception for wireless and others wondering why Google is being “sort of treated as the second coming of Satan.” The Canadian Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) questioned why the U.S. should create a net neutrality exception for wireless—a fast-growing sector that faces more network congestion than wireline—and where network neutrality rules are more necessary. “Congestion is more of an issue on wireless than it is on regular broadband, so net neutrality would be important to have,” Janet Lo, legal counsel with PIAC in Ottawa, said in an interview. “Otherwise, you risk having two different Internets, and two different sets of rules for essentially the same service, one delivered through wireline and another on wireless.” The U.S. policy proposal, made to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Congress, comes just as the CRTC has moved in the opposite direction, issuing a decision last month to extend its network management rules to the wireless sector. Following a series of meetings, Google and Verizon released a joint policy statement on net neutrality Monday, showing support for: consumer protection, so that Internet service providers (ISPs) cannot prevent users from sending and receiving lawful content, running lawful applications and services, or connecting to lawful services; a non-discrimination requirement to prevent ISPs from engaging in “undue discrimination” against any lawful Internet content, application, or service that harms competition or users; a requirement for ISPs to disclose “accurate and relevant information in plain language” about the characteristics and capabilities of their offerings and their network management practices; and a network management principle allowing ISPs to “engage in reasonable network management” to address congestion, improve network security or integrity, and ensure quality service. Michael Hennessy, senior vice-president of regulatory affairs at Telus Corp., said in an interview the agreement marked an important step toward net neutrality rules in the United States. The country has been eyeing a policy since U.S. President Barack Obama said in May 2009 he was “firmly committed to net neutrality” and that the Internet should be “open and free.” Net neutrality rules generally stipulate that broadband providers cannot show any undue preference to traffic and types of content on their networks. “There’s nothing bad here. If you’re a net neutrality advocate, as Google is, you should be happy down in the United States,” Hennessy said. “They are at least moving towards where Canada has been for awhile.” Observers have drawn comparisons between the Verizon-Google proposal for a case-by-case, complaints-based system, and the complaints-based net neutrality regime that the CRTC implemented last year. But some questioned the timing of the policy statement. It arrived just after FCC chairman Julius Genachowski had tried to work with a handful of major tech and communications companies—Google, Verizon, AT&T, and Skype—to develop a new policy on network neutrality. The FCC called off the discussions after they did not lead to results and threatened to undermine a broader industry consensus. In a release issued Tuesday, Openmedia.ca, a Canadian advocacy group for network neutrality rules, suggested the process is flawed. “The timing of these two events suggests that the Google/Verizon proposal is the end result of longstanding policy neglect concerning internet openness rules,” the release said. “Net neutrality policy development in the US now seems more convoluted and precarious than it has been in years. The FCC’s failed process for developing net neutrality policy and the resulting attempt by Verizon and Google to develop public policy themselves should be a lesson for Canadian policy makers.” Following the release of the Google-Verizon statement, advocates swarmed the web with posts and comments about how Google had gone “evil.” PC World writer Tony Bradley suggested Google and Verizon had “sabotaged” the FCC consultation. Using an analogy, he wrote it was as if the FCC called a meeting to declare pizza the best food ever. “Then Google and Verizon meet on the side and call a press conference to declare that pizza is, in fact, the best food ever. Awesome! We all agree. Right? Well, when you look at the details, Google and Verizon are declaring pizza the best food ever as long as it doesn't have pepperoni and it is only eaten indoors while sitting on folding chairs. All other scenarios are still open to interpretation,” he wrote. “If Google and Verizon are in favor of net neutrality, why not simply get on board with the FCC plan?” But Hennessy said the companies don’t deserve so much criticism, saying that Congress and the FCC will determine policy, and that Google and Verizon have merely set out principles toward drafting one. “In a more reasonable world, this would have been looked at positively,” he said. “The principles are incredibly reasonable, and they’re sort of treated as the second coming of Satan.” Verizon and Google argued there should be an exception to net neutrality rules for wireless, due to the “unique technical and operational characteristics of wireless networks, and the competitive and still-developing nature of wireless broadband services.” Only the transparency principles—not the non-discrimination principle—should apply to wireless broadband, the companies said, and the U.S. Government Accountability Office “would report to Congress annually on the continued development and robustness of wireless broadband Internet access services.” Verizon and Google also proposed another exception saying that providers could launch “additional online services” that are not subject to net neutrality rules. “Such services would have to be distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband Internet access service, but could make use of or access Internet content, applications or services and could include traffic prioritization,” the companies said. It is believed these “additional services” could include iPad or web applications intended for specific uses. Questions also emerged about the statement that only “lawful content” would be protected. Lo said the language is significant depending on who decides what content is defined as legal—the ISPs or the courts. The policy could mean ISPs judge content as illegal—such as that distributed as torrents or on peer-to-peer networks—and throttle it without court approval. In a joint op-ed in the Washington Post Tuesday, Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg said it is up to policymakers to establish broadband policy and that the companies are eager to work with Congress, the FCC and other parties. “There are hundreds of millions of Internet users in the United States, and no two companies should be so presumptuous as to think they can solve this challenge alone,” they wrote. sdoyle@thewirereport.ca

Google, Verizon propose U.S. net neutrality rules, exception for wireless

News | August 10, 2010

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us