Google and Verizon in talks to sell Internet Priority?

Coach AI · Aug 4, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/t...l=1&adxnnlx=1280981467-rGJ0yx9bLQdZVuBd2p7CxQ

Google and Verizon in Talks on Selling Internet Priority
By EDWARD WYATT
WASHINGTON — Google and Verizon, two leading players in Internet service and content, are nearing an agreement that could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content’s creators are willing to pay for the privilege.

The charges could be paid by companies, like YouTube, owned by Google, for example, to Verizon, one of the nation’s leading Internet service providers, to ensure that its content received priority as it made its way to consumers. The agreement could eventually lead to higher charges for Internet users.

Such an agreement could overthrow a once-sacred tenet of Internet policy known as net neutrality, in which no form of content is favored over another. In its place, consumers could soon see a new, tiered system, which, like cable television, imposes higher costs for premium levels of service.

Any agreement between Verizon and Google could also upend the efforts of the Federal Communications Commission to assert its authority over broadband service, which was severely restricted by a federal appeals court decision in April.

People close to the negotiations who were not authorized to speak publicly about them said an agreement could be reached as soon as next week. If completed, Google, whose Android operating system powers many Verizon wireless phones, would agree not to challenge Verizon’s ability to manage its broadband Internet network as it pleased.

Since the court decision, involving Comcast, in April, the F.C.C. has been trying to find a way to regulate broadband delivery, and that effort has been the subject of a series of private meetings at the agency’s headquarters in recent weeks. At the meetings, officials from the nation’s biggest Internet service and content providers, including Google and Verizon, have tried to reach a consensus on how broadband Internet service should be regulated in light of the decision. Those meetings continued this week, apart from the talks between Google and Verizon.

The court decision said the F.C.C. lacked the authority to require that an Internet service provider refrain from blocking or slowing down some content or applications, or giving favor to others. The F.C.C. has since sought another way in which to enforce the concept of net neutrality. But its proposals have been greeted with much objection in Congress and among Internet service providers, cable companies and some Internet content producers.

A spokesman for Verizon said that the company was still engaged in the larger talks to reach a consensus at the F.C.C. and declined to comment on other negotiations. A spokeswoman for Google also declined to comment. While a deal between Google and Verizon would affect only those two companies, it could sway the opinions of lawmakers, many of whom have questioned the wisdom of the F.C.C.’s plans to oversee broadband service.

At issue for consumers is how the companies that provide the pipeline to the Internet will ultimately direct traffic on their system, and how quickly consumers are able to gain access to certain Web content.

The prospect of a Google-Verizon agreement infuriates many consumer advocates, who feel that it would concentrate in a few corporations control of what to date has been a free and open Internet system in which consumers decide which companies are successful.

“The point of a network neutrality rule is to prevent big companies from dividing the Internet between them,” said Gigi B. Sohn, president and a founder of Public Knowledge, a consumer advocacy group. “The fate of the Internet is too large a matter to be decided by negotiations involving two companies, even companies as big as Verizon and Google.”

It is not clear that the Google-Verizon talks will result in a deal, or that any agreement would extend beyond those companies. David M. Fish, a spokesman for Verizon, acknowledged the talks, saying, “We’ve been working with Google for 10 months to reach an agreement on broadband policy.”

But, Mr. Fish added, “We are currently engaged in and committed to the negotiation process led by the F.C.C. We are optimistic this process will reach a consensus that can maintain an open Internet, and the investment and innovation required to sustain it.”

The F.C.C. process he referred to is what is jokingly called at the agency headquarters “the secret meeting.” At least nine times in the last seven weeks — including Wednesday night, with another meeting scheduled for Thursday — a group that includes Google, Verizon, AT&T, Skype, cable system operators and a group called the Open Internet Coalition has met with top F.C.C. officials to discuss net neutrality and the agency’s legal basis for regulating Internet service.

Cable and telephone companies want free rein to sell specialized services like “paid prioritization,” which would speed some content to users more quickly for a fee. Wireless companies, meanwhile, want no restrictions on wireless broadband, which they see as a different technology than Internet services that runs over wires.

Many content providers — like Amazon, eBay and Skype — prefer no favoritism on the Internet or they want to be sure that if a pay system exists, all content providers have the opportunity to pay for faster service.

The F.C.C., meanwhile, favors a level playing field, but it cannot impose one as long as its authority over broadband in legal doubt. It has proposed a solution that would reclassify broadband Internet service under the Communications Act from its current designation as an “information service,” a lightly regulated designation, to a “telecommunications service,” a category that, like telephone service, is subject to stricter regulation.
The F.C.C. has said that it does not want to impose strict regulation on Internet service and rates, but seeks only the authority to enforce broadband privacy and guarantee equal access. It also wants to use federal money to subsidize broadband service for rural areas.

While the F.C.C. is gathering public comment on its reclassification proposal, it has convened the private talks, which are overseen by Edward Lazarus, the chief of staff to Julius Genachowski, the F.C.C.’s chairman.

The private talks have produced some common ground among the participants on smaller matters. But one participant, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the group members agreed not to discuss their deliberations publicly, said there had been little movement “on the few big issues that are the most important.”

Frustrated with that lack of progress in the last two months, direct talks between Google and Verizon have accelerated, according to people close to the discussions who were not authorized to comment publicly.

Google and Verizon have their own, perhaps larger, interests at stake in negotiating separately. The Android operating system from Google is used on many Verizon phones, including the Droid, a competitor to the iPhone from Apple.

Consumer groups have objected to the private meetings, saying that too many stakeholders are being left out of discussions over the future of the Internet.

Mr. Lazarus said the meetings “are part of our efforts to identify the best way forward in the wake of the Comcast case to preserve the openness and vibrancy of the Internet.”
Click to expand...

DonnyMost · Aug 4, 2010

Net neutrality plz

Coach AI · Aug 5, 2010

DonnyMost said:

Net neutrality plz
Click to expand...

Yes. Though with all the parties involved it may be that neutrality was doomed eventually, I still don't like it.

Raven · Aug 5, 2010

DonnyMost said:

Net neutrality plz
Click to expand...

Double that.

REEKO_HTOWN · Aug 5, 2010

This cannot be allowed. Google should know better than to throttle the internet. Where is the Net Neutrality commission Obama was suppose to have to oversee this type of blatant attempt to ruin the internet?

krnxsnoopy · Aug 5, 2010

I love paying more for stuff I used to get for free..

Mulder · Aug 5, 2010

This sucks. Another area where corporate greed is going to work against the public good. Look at the speed and cost of access in other countries.

rrj_gamz · Aug 5, 2010

krnxsnoopy said:

I love paying more for stuff I used to get for free..
Click to expand...

no *****...

doboyz · Aug 5, 2010

krnxsnoopy said:

I love paying more for stuff I used to get for free..
Click to expand...

I know it said it in the article, but I have no idea how charging big companies to have their traffic prioritized will increase the customer cost. The companies should/are paying for this privilege.

Coach AI · Aug 5, 2010

doboyz said:

I know it said it in the article, but I have no idea how charging big companies to have their traffic prioritized will increase the customer cost. The companies should/are paying for this privilege.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing because once the content creators start paying and the priority is put into place, the tiered structure is pretty much created for the providers.

And at that point, well, they'd honestly just be dumb if they didn't make use of that.

moestavern19 · Aug 5, 2010

I can't wait to move to Japan.

Acedude · Aug 5, 2010

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_evil

BEAT LA · Aug 5, 2010

Mulder said:

This sucks. Another area where corporate greed is going to work against the public good. Look at the speed and cost of access in other countries.

Click to expand...

That chart is BS!

Each Mbit in America costs $5 - $6 on average.

16Mb plans are $100, which equals $6.25 per Mb or 2.4MB each costing $42.

Coach AI · Aug 9, 2010

So, apparently Google and Verizon's proposal seems to leave wired infrastructure generally untouched and definitely keeping neutrality in place there, so that's good ....but oh there is this little thing called wireless/mobile...

Some quotes from Engadget's breakdown:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/

the proposal reads to us like Verizon's basically agreeing to trade neutrality on its wired networks for the right to control its wireless network any way it wants -- apart from requiring wireless carriers and ISPs to be "transparent" about network management, none of the neutrality principles that govern wired networks will apply to wireless networks. That's a big deal -- it's pretty obvious that wireless broadband will be the defining access technology for the next generation of devices and services.
...

Transparency. Google and Verizon are making a big deal out of this one, since it's the only one that applies to wireless networks as well -- ISPs and carriers will have to "disclose accurate and relevant information in plain language" about what their networks are capable of, how they're managing them, and what their plans are. That means if Verizon wants to block BitTorrent on its 3G network (for example), it'll have to come out and say so. The idea is for consumers to know what is and isn't allowed on each network -- that way they can choose ISPs with a full set of facts. We're not sure network management practices will factor into consumer preferences for wireless carriers the same way as devices, speed and reliability do -- in fact, we're pretty sure most people will just ignore them and just pick the phone they want -- but this is apparently all Verizon's willing to give up when it comes to its mobile network.

...

Wireless broadband. Possibly the most important provision of the entire agreement, and the biggest compromise. Under Verizon and Google's plan, wireless networks would be excused from every provision except the transparency requirement. Why? Because of the "unique technical and operational characteristics of wireless networks," of course. Or... perhaps because Google has an interest in allowing Verizon to do whatever it wants with traffic on its Android-dominated wireless network. Either way, it's hard to reconcile the stated need for net neutrality in this agreement with a giant exception for wireless networks, which are quickly becoming the most important networks of all. We'll have to see how the fight over this provision shakes out.
Click to expand...

Ars Technica also has an article where they talk about all the 'loopholes' in this proposal:

http://arstechnica.com/telecom/guides/2010/08/googleverizon-we-do-loopholes-right.ars

Google has always presented itself as a different kind of corporate entity," warned Justin Ruben, executive director of MoveOn.org. "The fact that they are involved in a deal that would kill Internet freedom directly contradicts this image. We hope that Google will reconsider before they are seen as just another giant corporation out to make a buck regardless of the consequence."

Shortly after the plan was unveiled, Public Knowledge damned it as a package that "does almost nothing to preserve an open Internet."
Click to expand...

Luckily, this is just their 'proposal' and there are steps before it can be implemented, so that's also good. But it's clear that Verizon and Google are ready to implement this and they are pretty big players obviously.

Raven · Aug 9, 2010

Don't ask for net neutrality, demand net neutrality.

Landlord Landry · Aug 9, 2010

I have a computer. I downloaded the internet to it so I could play solitaire. Do I really need 61mbps?

Coach AI · Aug 12, 2010

Ars has an article where they talk about how much they think Google's at one time very vocal stance over keeping Net Neutrality has changed over the years:

http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news...-betrayal-googles-net-neutrality-collapse.ars

Like the rest of the technology world, we're wondering why Google has chosen to ally itself with Verizon, issuing a set of joint net neutrality recommendations that critics charge would significantly weaken the Federal Communications Commission's ability to protect the open Internet.

The whole approach just seemed so at odds with Google's past fiery statements on the issue. Maybe we misread the search engine giant's previous statements, we worried. Until this month, wasn't Google one of net neutrality's biggest advocates?

So this morning we re-read three Google documents again—filings with the FCC going back to 2007, shortly after Google's Eric Schmidt first asked the public to "take action to protect Internet freedom."

Comparing "Google Then" with "Google Now," the differences seem pretty stark. Google Then raised strong objections to three major points in the Google/Verizon statement that Google Now endorses.
Click to expand...

Facebook issued a statement about their support of Net Neutrality and how they differ with Google/Verizon's views:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-20013372-36.html

RedRedemption · Aug 12, 2010

Landlord Landry said:

I have a computer. I downloaded the internet to it so I could play solitaire. Do I really need 61mbps?
Click to expand...

61mbps average is insane...
Note this is an AVERAGE.

I don't know anybody personally that has anything close to that fast...

Forums

Google and Verizon in talks to sell Internet Priority?

Coach AI Member

DonnyMost Member
Supporting Member

Coach AI Member

Raven Member

REEKO_HTOWN I'm Rich Biiiiaaatch!

krnxsnoopy Member

Mulder Member

rrj_gamz Member

doboyz Member

Coach AI Member

moestavern19 Member

Acedude Member

BEAT LA Member

Coach AI Member

Raven Member

Landlord Landry Member

Coach AI Member

RedRedemption Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

Google and Verizon in talks to sell Internet Priority?

Coach AI Member

DonnyMost Member Supporting Member

Coach AI Member

Raven Member

REEKO_HTOWN I'm Rich Biiiiaaatch!

krnxsnoopy Member

Mulder Member

rrj_gamz Member

doboyz Member

Coach AI Member

moestavern19 Member

Acedude Member

BEAT LA Member

Coach AI Member

Raven Member

Landlord Landry Member

Coach AI Member

RedRedemption Member

Share This Page

DonnyMost Member
Supporting Member