Titan Google and Verizon Telecom USA proposed a legal framework to safeguard the “net neutrality” but said the rules should not apply to wireless broadband Internet.
“We both recognize that wireless broadband is different from traditional fixed telephony world, partly because the mobile market is more competitive and rapidly changing,” the companies said in a joint statement.
“In recognition of the incipient nature of the wireless broadband market, this proposal would not apply now most of the principles of wireless telephony.”
Google and Verizon submitted a plan for U.S. lawmakers to create laws to prevent Internet service providers for violating “net neutrality” giving priority to some data on digital information.
The recommendation that the wireless connections to the Internet can circumvent the net neutrality rules play into fears that Google is changing allegiance in the battle to stop Internet service providers (ISP) to give preferential treatment they pay.
“Mobile is the future, wireless and mobile technology,” reasoned the California high school student Mitchell Kernot. “So what they say is the future is not net neutral.”
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) officials refused to make comments.
The proposed framework would prohibit “unreasonable discrimination against any lawful Internet content” and give the FCC the power to impose a “seizure” of up to two million dollars for each violation.
The FCC shall have exclusive authority to supervise the service broadband Internet access but have no power over online applications, content or services.
In April, a U.S. court Appeals dealt a major setback for efforts by the FCC to require ISPs to treat all web traffic equally.
The court ruled that the FCC had not been granted legal authority by Congress to regulate network management practices of the ISP.
“(Google and Verizon) have been defenders of the current fixed-line principles of openness FCC Broadband, the company said.
“Our aim now that these principles are fully enforceable in the FCC.”
The proposal calls to let service providers offer free broadband “additional services” such as Verizon FiOS TV, which is currently available.
“This means that broadband providers can work with other players to develop new services,” the company said.
“It’s too early to predict how these new services are developed, but examples could include health monitoring, intelligent network, advanced education or entertainment and gaming options.”
Critics fear that these services may become a non-public wireless Internet in parallel where the data could get special handling.
The eastern division of the Writers Guild of America criticized the proposal, saying it is dividing the Internet in an area for the masses and another for the elite who could pay for data management preferred.
“We urge Congress and the FCC to consider this backdoor method of prioritizing Internet content carefully and see for violation of the freedom and creativity that is,” union director Lowell Peterson and Michael Winship, Bush said in a statement.
The proposal could be simply ignored by the FCC.
“Net neutrality is the way Google is trying to spin, but the message today has nothing to do with neutrality,” says independent technology analyst Carmi Levy. “This opens the door to a less neutral Internet in the future.”
The proposal contains some good principles, but “falls short”, said the Center for Democracy and Technology President Leslie Harris.
“The companies plan to put wireless Internet services in a regulatory exclusion zone and offers protection from the open Internet ineffective against the voracious expansion of so-called ‘additional services’” said Harris.
The heads of Google and Verizon hosted a call with reporters to say that his aim was to safeguard the neutrality of the network.
“Preservation of the open Internet is very important to Google,” CEO Eric Schmidt said.
“Open Internet enables to create the next Google.”
Schmidt and his counterpart at Verizon, Ivan Seidenberg, insist that they were up to tricks or trying new room.
“There is no prioritization of traffic coming from Google, in any case on the Internet, period,” Seidenberg said. “As far as we are concerned, would not have paid the prioritization of Internet traffic.”