Google and Verizon have announced their joint policy agreement on the Internet and broadband, seeking a continuation of the free and open policies around the public Internet while allowing for additional services outside of that network without a commitment to net neutrality and only a commitment to transparency.
On a conference call, CEOs Eric Schmidt of Google and Ivan Seidelberg of Verizon both announced the policy agreement, the outline of which is available here. While both of them criticized the New York Times story from last week and other reports about the two corporations backing down from a commitment to net neutrality (“almost all of which has been completely wrong,” Schmidt said, and asked reporters that they base their criticism “on what is actually announced today”), what they produced doesn’t necessarily conflict with the story.
The joint policy agreement makes a distinction between wireline and wireless broadband, basically the Internet you get on your computer, and what you can get on a smart phone, PDA, or some other not-yet-invented device. On wireline broadband, which the CEOs kept calling the public Internet, they displayed a full commitment to Internet openness and freedom:
First, both companies have long been proponents of the FCC’s current wireline broadband openness principles, which ensure that consumers have access to all legal content on the Internet, and can use what applications, services, and devices they choose. The enforceability of those principles was called into serious question by the recent Comcast court decision. Our proposal would now make those principles fully enforceable at the FCC.
Second, we agree that in addition to these existing principles there should be a new, enforceable prohibition against discriminatory practices. 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.
On wireless services, which as an example Verizon CEO Seidelberg used his company’s FIOS TV, the joint policy agreement only extends “transparency.” In other words, “providers would be required to give consumers clear, understandable information about the services they offer and their capabilities.” They would not be forced into non-discrimination requirements for content.
Google and Verizon were at pains to say that this does not represent any business arrangement between the two companies. “It’s just a joint statement to move the policy forward,” Schmidt said. For his part, he added that Google will keep all of its services on the wireline Internet because “we actually like the public Internet and we’re going to use it.” Schmidt vowed that his company would always keep YouTube, for example, on the public Internet.
The FCC has had informal discussions with Google and Verizon over the proposal, and the CEOs expect the commissioners to review the proposal and make comments at some point. One of the seven principles in the document is allowing the FCC to have a new enforcement mechanism to regulate the broadband space, with the ability to impose fines of “up to $2 million dollars on bad actors.”
So basically, we have strict rules and enforcement of the existing broadband space, without extending those rules to mobile or wireless Internet devices, and just a nod to transparency, as well as a GAO report every year to assure that consumers are protected in that space. So you could have paid prioritization of content on these servies. It’s not so much a loophole as a giant black hole.
But both Verizon and Google insisted that this wouldn’t lead to a massive shift in resources away from the public Internet, and that they would try to maintain and expand capacity there. “Verizon and Google have a large incentive to make the public internet useful, because that’s what the users want,” Schmidt said. Both companies said they would apply these principles to their businesses immediately.
Seidelberg concluded, “Verizon is standing tall and agreeing to open internet. We’ll keep developing the Internet… But we want to continue to offer FIOS or anything else anyone has.”





63 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
What a load of crap. FIOS is WIRED. Sorry, but fiber optics IS OVER A LANDLINE that happens be be made of glass fiber rather than copper coax. There’s nothing wireless about it. See, wireless means “over the air”. They are really REALLY splitting hairs if they are going to call fiber optics non-wired because it doesn’t use a defacto wire of some kind. In addition to that, fiber optics is the LAST place you need to worry about bandwidth issues. There’s so much friggin room for bandwidth on fiber optic lines that there’s NO justification for ANY kind of throttling of bandwidth.
Verizon SUCKS and so does Google-Doing-Evil.
Oh, they’ll fuck us and ruin every cool thing. Always ever thus.
“Don’t be evil.” Well, that lasted – a while.
Anybody wanna buy a bridge? I’ve got one for sale if you believe these a**hats.
For those who’d rather fight by switching, a list of extant search engines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_search_engines
Oh, and Google can forget about me buying their Android, be it apps or OS.
So they will be telling you what they are charging extra for, great policy.
You learn everything you need to know about capitalism by observing drug dealers. The first taste is free, you get hooked, no more freebies.
Classic bait and switch. Verizon and Google are saying the future is in wireless, that is where the real money is going to be so the serfs can have their land lines.
Is this assertion a big, fat crock of shit, or am I missing something here? A “joint statement to move the policy forward” is, by definition, a business arrangement. I hope both Verizon and Google get a shitload of blowback and bad press from this.
Fiber optic CABLES are not “wireless” by any stretch. Verizon is using symantic gymnastics to self-servingly call its fiber optic CABLE service “wireless” so THEY can squelch disfavored net content and not be considered part of the “public internet” which, oddly enough, happens to include virtually ALL their competitors.
See, Verizon, let me explain a little something to you. The commonly recognized definition of “wireless” internet is via radio or microwave broadcast through the air sans any cable transmission medium. Fiber optics don’t fit in this definition as ALL humans understand it. Fiber optic CABLES are hard land lines with metal shielding inside. They are HARDWARE lines that transmit signals the same way as coax does – over a physical “wire” that in the former case is made of hairlike glass fibers transmitting laser light and in the latter case electrons over copper wire. No significant difference except that fiber optic cable has NO real bandwidth issues to worry about, especially when compared to even the fastest coax cable system.
Assholes. Google sucks hard too. “Don’t be evil” my ass. Google has been doing evil at every possible turn (their deals with the devil in China were the very definition of evil). Corporate shiteaters.
Let’s get a facebook and twitter roll going to attack Verizon and Google over their anti-net-neutrality (in fact rather than in word) “agreement”.
I for one will NEVER use verizon products of any kind. Google…well I’ll either use an anonymous pipe to use your search service (like Scroogle) that removes all the advertising and all your ability to record my personal info or use totally different services. Assholes. And I’ll NEVER buy an Android product of any kind.
Google ? weren’these the same people who were helping the Chinese Govt spy
on it’s people using internet resources.
But folks pay attention to how they are playing the game in America:Google’s CEOs Eric Schmidt during the Prez campaign goes on a few “Corporate Progressives” TV shows(Maddow & Olberman) spits out a few progressive catch phrases….& magically everyone touting him as a very progressive CEO.It’s why you can’t believe anything on TV.
Then during the course of a year…boom,the implementation of their Corporate greed & selfishness is adopted,by that time…people who were praising ‘em as progressive are so stunned or ashamed,they retreat..
This is exactly what Obama did during the campaign….and we all see how his progressive friends(Labor Unions & MoveOn etc,etc) have allowed him to get away with policies they were up in arms about during Bush’s term.
Google lied? I shocked.
I’m sure the Obama DoJ will examine this business non-arrangement, or joint agreement to agree, or anti-consumer exercise with customary rigor.
Fascism sneaks into America on little padded Corpi-cat feet…
Zackly.
I haven’t used google since the joint announcement last week(?).
Everybody urge everybody to stop using google, ASAP.
So what if they’re lying? So what if candidates lie? Lying is what they’re good at, it’s the most important part of their work. There’s nothing wrong with lying, is there? I mean, it’s not as bad as believing what they say.
What about all us rural folks who don’t have any wires to speak of? The only internet access I have is wireless. Does that mean we are not part of the public internet?
Great marketing though. The media (and probably the White House) will pick up the theme of public and private internet as if it actually exists in that form and the Republicans can call “socialism” on any attempts to regulate the “private” internet. Brilliant actually. Too bad these folks don’t work for our side.
Now that they have showed their hand as to how they plan to take over the internet, it is our job to find an equally brilliant way of shutting down this idea of public and private internets. Any ideas?
Of all the search engines listed in the Wikipedia article, the one I want to highlight is Ixquick, under meta-search engines: they don’t record IPS addresses (plus they have a proxy feature for added privacy), so it’s the best for privacy, bar none (to the best of my knowledge, anyway). It’s also known as Startpage.
Thanks for the link, I had been thinking about the Droidx. Always thinking about how to divorce Verizon.
Is there a wikki for stuff not to buy and stuff to never ever ever buy; businesses never ever to deal with? Realize it doesn’ leave much to buy if you are really clean.
It’s hard to keep track.
Thanks for that! I followed their directions and installed lxquick in my Safari browser as the default search engine. No more Google for me! It was super easy to do. Go to http://startpage.com/ and click on “add startpage to your browser.”
Institutional memory is only as good as the next CEO, Board etc….This is a skirt around the FCC which would not agree to their BS. Anything that is not part of the “FREE” network should be taxed just like any other utiltiy.
Yes, this sucks, but many of the commenters are missing the point on how it sucks.
Let’s say you have high-speed Internet over fiber optic. They are not calling that “wireless”. They are not threatening to free themselves from Net Neutrality there. Oh, no, they even want to protect Net Neutrality THERE!
But reading between the lines – that’s where the dirty part comes. Wireless internet will not be subject to neutrality provisions. What they aren’t telling you is that the TelCos view this is their growth industry, unregulated, this is their new garden. The “OLD” “PUBLIC” (read “welfare”) Internet – that will still be neutral, but all the real action will shift elsewhere, to the new unregulated space. All the money will go there. Still don’t have fiber optic to your home? Good luck getting it now. That’s a dinosaur. Why should we invest in it? Get a Cell Phone or an IPad. So ha ha, you can have your Net Neutrality — while we busily make it irrelevant.
That’s the game.
How come when I edit my post it takes out all the line feeds?
Oops, now my line feeds are back. Never mind.
That’s an excellent point. I don’t have any wireless devices, and don’t want any, but I was hoping for fiber optic at some point. Now, as you say, it’s unlikely that anyone will make the investment upgrade.
This is a good point. Where I work we have offices in rural, remote places. Right now our broadband connectivity is either satellite or cellular. What happens when wireless is your only choice? No “public” internet for you! And would this pronouncement apply only to final connections? As in, if a packet travels over any wire/cable, it’s deemed “public”?
And nice choice of words, Veroogle. What the opposite of public?
That’s right, Googizon just announced the creation of the private internet.
Except that true wireless will ALWAYS be slower/lower bandwidth than cable or fiber. It is necessarily so. Wireless transmission IS bandwidth and speed limited whereas fiber (in particular) is a VERY VERY “fat pipe”. Fiber/cable is more secure than wireless (weather doesn’t interfere with fiber or cable). Wireless attenuates quickly (cubed root law). I can actually see an issue with complete non-control of how bandwidth is used and by whom with wireless (how would you like to see all your net traffic slow to a crawl because the kids next door and next door to them are downloading gigabytes of fileshare?). Physics is physics and wireless (true wireless broadcast medium) IS a slower and narrower pipe and always will be so. I would NEVER want to count wireless as my sole/only means of access to the internet. I would ALWAYS prefer a DSL wire or cable to wireless (at worst) and fiber (at best) to wireless.
Hell, my own TDS ISP put in fiber optic line down my rural road 2 years ago. I asked the techs if this meant we (customers) would get a fatter pipe and maybe even TV entertainment now through the fiber. He said (the tech is also the local owner) “not right now” and “if/when we get a provider we could”. So, there’s this HUGE pipe across my front yard but right now all I get is 765k DSL when I should/could get a HUGE increase in speed/bandwidth if/when that fiber is actually used to its full potential (hell, even to HALF its potential). I do NOT want wireless. I WANT FIBER.
Wireless internet is just as limited as satellite. Satellite sucks. Weather? Lose signal. Speed? It’s OK/so-so. The big downside to satellite vs ground-based wireless is ONLY latency (simplified: ping time). The signal via satellite has to go up to ~28,000 miles and then be rebroadcast back down to a ground station (another 28,000 miles) and THEN to the final destination and then back to you. Slow slow slow. Wireless on the ground doesn’t suffer THAT issue but beyond that it sucks just as much as satellite.
I think we’ve got more standing law on the books protecting the FCC’s right to regulate the public airwaves.
That’s a good thing protecting us for a bit.
The Roberts SCOTUS could do away with that pretty quickly, though.
George Carlin said:
“It’s a big club, and you’re not in it.”
The FCC’s right to regulate the public airwaves is a whole lot more established in case law than the FCC’s right to regulate the internet.
Roberts SCOTUS could do away with that pretty quickly, but they are going to have to make the ruling to overrule a lot of case law to overturn the FCC’s clear role to regulate the public airwaves.
I think you misunderstood. I agree with you. I don’t have wireless, and I don’t want wireless. All I want is the agreed upon speed/clarity for my landlines.
I gave up tv about 5 years ago due to being in an area where satellite is cheaper and more comprehensive than cable and where both satellite and cable are outrageously expensive.
So the question is:
Are the telcos and cablecos going to be allowed to walk away from their existing wireline delivery obligations? The telcos want to walk away, the cablecos don’t since that’s their only business (so far). Are they going to be able to fob off wireless as their answer to the demand for wiring everyone?
Now if wireless is seen as a separate business, I might even cut the telcos a little slack as bandwidth is a real problem, IF they’re going to continue to grow wired. But my sense is they want out of wired.
Wireless telephony is regulated much less then wireline telephony. I don’t think wireless phones are treated the same as broadcast.
Banking won’t go wireless. They won’t put themselves in a situation sunspots could screw up transaction processing for a while.
As long as banking is going to stayed wired, I’d think plenty of players will maintain a wired network.
Excuse my naivite, buty I thought every part of the Internet, wired or wireless, was covered by Net Neutrality.
So…Googizon are just going to change the semantics? And then the costs and how content is delivered – and get away with it?
The FCC may not have exercised the role that much on phones, but the role is clearly defined and reaffirmed every time the FCC does a spectrum auction.
Satellite isn’t as bad as all that when you consider that digital video (or audio) is delayed in the stream anyway. SInce the all-digital imposition, true ‘real-time’ live no longer happens. You can listen to the ball game on radio, hear the third strike called before the pitcher throws the ball on TV. Plus, being so far away, the satellite won’t give tens of millions of users brain cancer. Talk about time lag and delay: It will take about 30 years before the data are in about microwaves, RF, EMR, not-yet developed ‘batteries’ (20 years for the longitudinal study, 5 years to cherry-pick the analysts, 5 years to jury the peer reviews).
That is true. This will get interesting, methinks.
My point in going on about the inherent weakness of ALL wireless is that telcos would be stupid to focus on that and only that because there isn’t jackall they can do to improve it much. Their bandwidth isn’t going to magically increase because even with more spectrum made available, it will STILL be tight. Throwing all their money into a permanently hamstrung medium is ridiculous. Hardwire/fiber is the ONLY place where real bandwidth and capability resides. Customers will NOT tolerate less for more, which is what you’d get if hard wire went by the wayside.
(Disclosure: I prefer wire, especially fiber, have AT&T U-verse for Internet & phone, Time-Warner for basic-only TV cable b/c it’s included in my rent with no opt-out option).
The obvious feature of wireless is the freedom from tether and location. Quality of content has never been important to consumers. ‘Good enough’ has been the prevailing aesthetic (digital cameras = Exhibit B; Exhibit A was 525 scan lines of broadcast TV). Won’t ‘fast enough’ also prevail for the mass of consumers?
You “gave up tv”, meaning that you don’t capture with an indoor or rooftop antenna? (It’s wireless and free, except for the antenna).
Gamers and online movie viewers and TV viewers know that fast enough means FAST and FASTER. Music downloads and software downloads also require FAST.
Your thread comments go a very long way to help everyone who reads them understand the Verizon-Google ‘announcement’ as the non-agression pact it represents. (The user/subscriber is like 1939 Poland.)
Unfortunately, my “closest” broadcasters are almost 40 miles away. Otherwise, I would consider an indoor antenna (limit 30 miles for a good one). However, for what I need to receive broadcast tv, it would be at least a $400 investment just to receive the “free” channels. Hardly a good investment for the 1 or 2 shows per week that I might watch.
Actually, you need a converter box as well as an antenna since everything is broadcast digital now.
So a lot of folks gave up TV in the last few years
This is exactly right, and they know it. They are prepping the dumb public into thinking that landlines will always be there.
Why worry?
In fact, the days of the landlines are drawing to a close. Everything will be wireless…and soon.
Verizon recently unloaded its landline based telephone service. Now why do you think it did that?
Predatory corporations like Verizon first invent the future but keep it a secret, then it works to enact rules and laws that will benefit its future technology, and then it tells you what the future in technology will be.
That is what is happening here. Nothing these two predatory corporations (Google/Verizon) do is for the good of the country and its people. Everything they do is to financially rape you.
That’s not entirely correct.
Older (not high-def) TVs require a converter box and special antenna to receive over-the-air signals.
High definition TVs only need the special antenna to pick up over-the-air HD signals. No converter box is needed.
Generally once a year I download a new system for my home and laptop computer (Linux). That is a ~7 GB download. It takes a few hours for me right now with my DSL. I also have downloaded movies and other big files (like Wikileaks “insurance” file) over a similar span of time. Playing games is easy as latency is low, unlike satellite which would lock you out of playing games online. I imagine it would really suck to try and do secondlife via satellite too.
We lose satellite every time it rains here. Currently my cell phone is not getting signal (not sure why that is). Having to rely on wireless would SUCK (plus you would have to have cell towers all over bejeezus – line of site to each other) to make it work. I would absolute hate to do all that I do over wireless. It’s OK in a pinch (basic web browsing and email) but for anything heavier…no thanks. Over fiber it would (should) take mere minutes to download huge files and there should be no problem at all viewing video streams IF the provider is doing it right rather than ripping off the customer. Wireless…ugh. It would (especially with a heavy user load) be like being in the dialup days again in relative terms.
true, my bad. But there are probably far more people still using older analog in areas where they need an antenna than there are folks with Hi-Def
Don’t forget though; with the exception of satellite, wireless is only from the cell tower to the mobile or wireless device.
Once the signal hits the cell tower, it all works back the wireline system.
One of the reasons Verizon is doing this is that AT&T is forecasted to be #1 mobile provider by the 2nd quarter of 2011 because of the iPhones/Pads.
They all have a choke point at the cell tower level, and they’re going to gouge for that.
No… they aren’t.
You may have some business-only people thinking it’s going all-wireless at the moment. Their tech people are trying to tell them that’s not going to be true. Some may not listen to their tech people. Those guys are going to lose their shirts.
Banking isn’t ever going to go all wireless. Whatever banking does, many will go along with.
Cell-tower choke point I agree with.
All:
Sure Ivan and Eric were performing a fancy fiber optic colonoscopy with the press conference, but there is probably less to it than meets eye. Getting past the hysteria, some of the ideas aren’t bad. Is it really a bad idea to have medical things on a more closed network, both for performance, privacy and security?
As to the whole wireless versus wireline, the wireless networks couldn’t exist without the wireline. Wireless is largely a last mile technology. Is Verizon doing away with all wireline? Not at all. In fact, there’s a large investment in running fiber optic lines to cell towers. What VZ is largely trying to get out of is the copper based twisted pair business, which is shrinking rapidly.
What is the wireless internet? It is that last mile to the mobile devices. What the mobile carriers want is the ability to charge those who devour huge amounts of wireless bandwidth. Good/bad ? Who knows. If someone is intent on watching full length movies on the cell phone, well pay for it.
BTW, the next generation of wireless technologies is considerably faster and it isn’t outside the realm of possibilities that for some, it could be a primary ISP. That is a interesting area in terms of how it would be priced.
I wouldn’t count on Uncle Sugar to oppose the private nets too vigorously, as the parts of the government want private internet networks, for security and other reasons.
Adam503 @34: Believe it or not, banks have used wireless networks for ATM coverage at special events in remote areas!
Thinking more about this -
you’re right, there are certainly businesses such as banking that depend on the wired internet and cannot allow it to go away.
However, as the telcos move toward wireless, it may still mean the death knell of efforts to expand the wired Internet, perhaps as part of some currently politically unimaginable job-creation package. The banks already have the vast majority of customers they want. The rest, they don’t care so much about.
That’s also not entirely correct. The issue is digital broadcasting, not High Definition or HD ‘resolution’.
If your TV tuner is digital, you’re good to go without an additional digital converter. High Definition would need a new thread to discuss.
I’m not aware that a digital TV tuner requires a ‘special’ antenna to receive/capture over-the-air broadcast signals. Ordinary rabbit ears would work.
Thanks for the clarifications.
Links and headlines for a few posts attacking this deal:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-aaron/google-verizon-pact-it-ge_b_676194.html
HP — August 9, 2010 — by Craig Aaron,Managing Director, Free Press
Google-Verizon Pact: It Gets Worse
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/google_and_verizon_have_a_plan_to_wreck_the_internet_20100809/
TRUTHDIG.COM — 8/9/2010
Google and Verizon Have a Plan to Wreck the Internet
Also, it appears from the rundown of the five stories on Countdown tonight, KO is going to ignore this story. Wouldn’t have anything to do with the pending Comcast acquisition of NBC-Uni?
Nah. Of course not.
Meanwhile, on Hardball, the CNBC reporter stated that “Google and Verizon succeeded where the government failed and announced a plan to insure net neutrality”. No bias in that statement!
“money changes everything”
Cyndi Lauper
Did anyone mention what those insurance premiums will cost each subscriber?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-aaron/google-verizon-pact-it-ge_b_676194.html
…
What Google and Verizon are proposing is fake Net Neutrality. You can read their framework for yourself here or go here to see Google twisting itself in knots about this suddenly “thorny issue.” But here are the basics of what the two companies are proposing:
1. Under their proposal, there would be no Net Neutrality on wireless networks — meaning anything goes, from blocking websites and applications to pay-for-priority treatment.
2. Their proposed standard for “non-discrimination” on wired networks is so weak that actions like Comcast’s widely denounced blocking of BitTorrent would be allowed.
3. The deal would let ISPs like Verizon — instead of Internet users like you — decide which applications deserve the best quality of service. That’s not the way the Internet has ever worked, and it threatens to close the door on tomorrow’s innovative applications. (If RealPlayer had been favored a few years ago, would we ever have gotten YouTube?)
4. The deal would allow ISPs to effectively split the Internet into “two pipes” — one of which would be reserved for “managed services,” a pay-for-play platform for content and applications. This is the proverbial toll road on the information superhighway, a fast lane reserved for the select few, while the rest of us are stuck on the cyber-equivalent of a winding dirt road.
5. The pact proposes to turn the Federal Communications Commission into a toothless watchdog, left fruitlessly chasing consumer complaints but unable to make rules of its own. Instead, it would leave it up to unaccountable (and almost surely industry-controlled) third parties to decide what the rules should be.
If there’s a silver lining in this whole fiasco it’s that, last I checked anyway, it wasn’t up to Google and Verizon to write the rules. That’s why we have Congress and the FCC.
Certainly by now we should have learned — from AIG, Massey Energy, BP, you name it — what happens when we let big companies regulate themselves or hope they’ll do the right thing.
…
IMHO…there is only one real question:
Is there anything in this country that the MOTU and asswads like Verizon, Google, Comcast, and the rest of the Fascist corps and ruling class haven’t fucked up?
They will be selling us the air soon…just wait, and if you can’t afford it: GASP! DIE serf!
The deception of Schmidt is unforgivable. He talks about an open “wire line” internet deliberately leaving the impression all is right with the internet world. Excluded from the so-called policy statement is the wireless internet which includes all mobile devices. This is the market Verizon wants to control big time. Comcast can have cable- but Verizon/Google will be stomping all over all present and future wireless internet users (4G, 3G and all future G). Come on Eric. – do you take us all for a bunch of fools?You want to keep the pristine image of Google as defenders of Net Neutrality but you are selling the future internet down the river. Such hypocrisy is unforgivable. Google has raised its true flag and it is the flag of Big Business and Corporate Control. We must all join forces and fight this destruction of internet openness. Down with Google!! We need to promote and support open source search engine development – or any service provider that truly embraces Net Neutrality and does not lie to the public like Eric Schmidt and his Google crowd. I would implore all disappointed Google employees to bail out and start planning for a time when your employment contracts will permit you to create a monster Google competitor. There is a Wiki oriented public prepared to help pay for this freedom. Lets all vow to terminate our GMAIL accounts and stop using Google software of any sort.