The Google/Verizon Axis

[Patrick Degan]

Tollbooth ahead?

For years, Internet advocates have warned of the doomsday scenario that will play out on Monday: Google and Verizon will announce a deal that the New York Times reports "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 deal marks the beginning of the end of the Internet as you know it. Since its beginnings, the Net was a level playing field that allowed all content to move at the same speed, whether it's ABC News or your uncle's video blog. That's all about to change, and the result couldn't be more bleak for the future of the Internet, for television, radio and independent voices.

How did this happen? We have a Federal Communications Commission that has been denied authority by the courts to police the activities of Internet service providers like Verizon and Comcast. All because of a bad decision by the Bush-era FCC. We have a pro-industry FCC Chairman who is terrified of making a decision, conducting back room dealmaking, and willing to sit on his hands rather than reassert his agency's authority. We have a president who promised to "take a back seat to no one on Net Neutrality" yet remains silent. We have a congress that is nearly completely captured by industry. Yes, more than half of the US congress will do pretty much whatever the phone and cable companies ask them to. Add the clout of Google, and you have near-complete control of Capitol Hill.

A non-neutral Internet means that companies like AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and Google can turn the Net into cable TV and pick winners and losers online. A problem just for Internet geeks? You wish. All video, radio, phone and other services will soon be delivered through an Internet connection. Ending Net Neutrality would end the revolutionary potential that any website can act as a television or radio network. It would spell the end of our opportunity to wrest access and distribution of media content away from the handful of massive media corporations that currently control the television and radio dial.

So the Google-Verizon deal can be summed up as this: "FCC, you have no authority over us and you're not going to do anything about it. Congress, we own you, and we'll get whatever legislation we want. And American people, you can't stop us.

This Google-Verizon deal, this industry-captured FCC, and the way this is playing out is akin to the largest banks and the largest hedge funds writing the regulatory policy on derivative trading without any oversight or input from the public, and having it rubber stamped by the SEC. It's like BP and Halliburton ironing out the rules for offshore oil drilling with no public input, and having MMS sign off.

Fortunately, while they are outnumbered, there are several powerful Net Neutrality champions on Capitol Hill, like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Henry Waxman, Jay Rockefeller, Ed Markey, Jay Inslee and many others. But they will not be able to turn this tide unless they have massive, visible support from every American who uses the Internet --- whether it's for news, email, shopping, Facebook, Twitter --- whatever. So stop what you're doing and tell them you're not letting the Internet go the way of Big Oil and Big Banks. The future of the Internet, and your access to information depends on it.

Author's note: Notice how a company can change their tune in the name of profitmaking. From Google in 2006: "Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody - no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional - has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can't pay."


Follow Josh Silver on Twitter: www.twitter.com/freepress

Wouldn't it be nice, I sometimes wonder, if we had a government which acted in the public interest instead of kneeling down to suck corporate cock all the time?

[Patrick Degan]

BTW, a link to Sen. Al Franken's online petition against this deal.

[Dominus Atheos]

Ugh, Huffington Post. Figures those moonbats wouldn't update the story.

Ars Technica

"Say it isn't so!" The Kid famously pleads to The Slugger as rumors fly that the ball game he just lost was fixed.

That's pretty much what everybody has been shouting at Google following a New York Times story suggesting that the search engine giant has cut a deal with Verizon in which the former will accept "pay for speed" priority access arrangements. Critics say that would kick net neutrality hopes in the knees.

But, unlike the fictional power hitter who walks away in shame, Google actually says it ain't so.

"@NYTimes is wrong," the company tweeted this morning on its public policy account. "We've not had any convos with VZN about paying for carriage of our traffic. We remain committed to an open internet."

Ditto, insists Verizon.

"The New York Times article regarding conversations between Google and Verizon is mistaken," the carrier wrote to us this morning. "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."

[Kanastrous]

From the perspective of someone who works in content creation, I would much rather the tollbooth be placed on the viewer's side of the tv, than on the broadcasters'. The former may dictate how fast you can get stuff, but the latter dictates what stuff is even going to be available, for you to get.

[Sarevok]

How slow are we talking about for content providers who dont pay ?

[General Zod]

Since its beginnings, the Net was a level playing field that allowed all content to move at the same speed, whether it's ABC News or your uncle's video blog.

Iff you look only at the averages in the middle, ignoring the actual bottlenecks... the connection points to the Internet are where you pay your toll, and how much you pay tells how much you get. There's already a toll booth there, and the on-ramps are indeed blocked if you don't pay up. This should be obvious to everyone.

So let's see, we have:

1) Misleading facts
2) Unwarranted OMFG END OF TEH WORLD!!!1!!!!11! ranting
3) More of #2
4) Christ, even more of #2
5) And of course, according to DA's post, the whole thing is built on falsehoods


Great fucking reporting there, @freepress.

I'm honestly surprised Degan's posting this at all. Virtually all of the major sites have been reporting this as completely false for the last couple of days.

[Patrick Degan]

Since its beginnings, the Net was a level playing field that allowed all content to move at the same speed, whether it's ABC News or your uncle's video blog.

Iff you look only at the averages in the middle, ignoring the actual bottlenecks... the connection points to the Internet are where you pay your toll, and how much you pay tells how much you get. There's already a toll booth there, and the on-ramps are indeed blocked if you don't pay up. This should be obvious to everyone.

So let's see, we have:

1) Misleading facts
2) Unwarranted OMFG END OF TEH WORLD!!!1!!!!11! ranting
3) More of #2
4) Christ, even more of #2
5) And of course, according to DA's post, the whole thing is built on falsehoods


Great fucking reporting there, @freepress.

I'm honestly surprised Degan's posting this at all. Virtually all of the major sites have been reporting this as completely false for the last couple of days.

Really? Then why is The Wall Street Journal saying this:

Verizon Communications Inc. and Google Inc. may soon announce an agreement that the companies hope could be used as a model for legislation aimed at preventing telephone or cable companies from delaying or blocking Internet traffic.

The two companies have been negotiating with each other for months on a compromise on the thorny issue of so-called net neutrality—the principle that Internet providers such as phone or cable companies should not deliberately slow or block Internet sites or services.
More

Broadband providers say they need to be able to manage their networks so that all customers get the best possible experience, which might involve slowing some traffic, such as email, so other more timely traffic, such as phone calls, can get through.

Internet companies, such as Google, have historically opposed the idea of prioritized traffic because it could represent additional costs.

A Google spokeswoman declined to comment while a Verizon spokesman said in a statement that the companies have worked on an agreement for 10 months. "We are currently engaged in and committed to the negotiation process led by the FCC" that will allow both sides to "reach a consensus that can maintain an open Internet and the investment and innovation required to sustain it," he said.

Details are scarce. People briefed on the tentative agreement, however, said it could provide a framework for legislation that would codify some of the Federal Communications Commission's net-neutrality principles. It would, however, allow phone and cable companies to offer faster, priority delivery of Internet traffic for companies that pay extra for the service, these people said.

The agreement would not apply net-neutrality principles to wireless networks, these people said. Discussions currently taking place at the FCC have centered partly on whether wireless networks should be subject to net neutrality.

Google and Verizon have a close business relationship, working on the popular Droid phones, the competitors to Apple Inc.'s iPhone, which use Google's Android operating system, and jointly developing a tablet computer that could compete with Apple's iPad.

The Verizon-Google proposal comes as aides to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski continue to hold private meetings with phone, cable and Internet company lobbyists about a compromise that would allow the agency to avoid re-regulating broadband lines.

Those negotiations began in June, after 70 House Democrats sent the FCC a letter complaining about the FCC's proposal to re-regulate, and administration officials fielded a stream of complaints from union leaders and telecom executives, including Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg.

It's not clear if the FCC's closed-door meetings will result in a compromise or how a Google-Verizon proposal might affect the negotiations. People with knowledge of the talks say that progress has been incremental and that a deal is not imminent.

It is also unclear whether other phone or Internet companies will sign onto the Verizon-Google agreement. In a statement, AT&T Inc. said it was not party to the deal. "We remain committed to trying to reach a consensus on this issue through the FCC process," the company said.

Practically speaking, the significance of the Verizon-Google agreement may be limited as it only involves those two companies. Moreover, smaller Internet companies with shallower pockets than Google, as well as consumer groups, may not agree with much of the deal.

The Verizon-Google deal "is worse [for consumers] than what they are negotiating at the FCC," said Gigi Sohn, co-founder of Public Knowledge, a digital advocacy group, who was briefed on the companies' proposal. She also said it could mean that big companies would have an advantage over start-ups that cannot afford the extra expense.

Mr. Genachowski is trying to avoid a controversial vote on the proposal that would re-regulate Internet lines and allow the FCC to police broadband providers more easily. He proposed the change after a federal appeals court in May concluded that the FCC had overstepped its authority in 2008 when it censured Comcast Corp. for deliberately slowing some customers' Internet traffic.

AT&T, Verizon and other broadband providers are fighting the proposal, arguing that the FCC should avoid imposing decades-old telephone rules on new Internet lines. Both the companies and union leaders say that Congress instead should update the law to give the FCC the authority it needs to be the Internet traffic cop.

While The Kansas City Star also reported:

Via TMC.net

Possible pact between Google, Verizon would create Internet class system
Aug 06, 2010 (The Kansas City Star - McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX) -- The all-data-travels-coach ethos that has long ruled the Internet could be making way for business class.

Google reportedly is on the brink of an alliance with Verizon Communications Inc. that would give priority to a particular class of Internet traffic. It would pose a significant challenge to the current egalitarian flow of bits, bytes and terabytes over broadband connections.

Analysts, telecommunications firms and consumer groups say the pact, the first between a content provider, Google, and a broadband carrier, Verizon, would be a turning point in the debate over so-called net neutrality.

Those who've been briefed on the Google-Verizon negotiations say the deal would establish a model for cable and phone companies that paves an Internet express lane. That digital road would be reserved for Internet traffic created by businesses that pay an extra toll so their content would move faster. Various news agencies reported that a finished deal is just days away.

Now, the sometimes gridlocked lanes of data uploading and downloading across the Internet all move with the same right of way -- a report from Library of Congress holding no preference over posts from any random blogger.

"The question is: 'Do we want everybody to have equal access to the Internet?' That's pretty much what we have right now," said Sandy Davidson, who teaches communications law at the University of Missouri. "I don't think we want people who have bigger checkbooks (to) determine what goes to the head of the line on the Internet." Publicly, Google denied any such deal is imminent.
A spokesman for the Internet search leader referred to a Twitter post from Google's public policy team Thursday saying "we've not had any (talks) with (Verizon) about paying for carriage of our traffic. We remain committed to an open Internet." The spokesman also cited a June 16 company blog post spelling out Google's view on net neutrality -- where the firm said it opposed "building a new 'fast lane' online that consigns (some) Internet content and applications to a relatively slow, bandwidth-starved portion of the broadband connection." Verizon also denied a deal is in the works. "Our goal is an Internet policy framework that ensures openness and accountability, and incorporates specific FCC authority, while maintaining investment and innovation," a Verizon statement said. "To suggest this is a business arrangement between our companies is entirely incorrect." Yet one person who was briefed on talks between Verizon and Google, Art Brodsky of the consumer group Public Knowledge, said that while any deal remains fuzzy, it would involve Internet priority for a price.

He sees it as a sharp turnaround for Google.

"On a practical level, you've got the biggest Internet company and biggest phone company skipping up to Congress and saying, 'See, we've reached a deal,' " Brodsky said.

He was briefed on the matter because Public Knowledge was part of ongoing talks orchestrated by the Federal Communications Commission between large phone, cable and Internet companies and consumer groups. They have been searching for a compromise on how to regulate Internet traffic.

On Thursday, in the wake of the reported Google-Verizon deal, the FCC abandoned efforts to broker a compromise. That left a hazy view of how the Obama administration might move on the issue.

"We have called off this round of stakeholder discussions," FCC Chief of Staff Edward Lazarus said in a statement. "It has been productive on several fronts, but has not generated a robust framework to preserve the openness and freedom of the Internet. ... All options remain on the table." FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has said he wants rules that would require phone and cable companies to treat all broadband traffic the same.

A coalition of consumer groups and the online phone service Skype contends that net neutrality would keep Internet service providers from acting as judges over what data and applications deserve the fastest delivery.

They worry that cable or phone companies might put one type of Web transaction -- say Hulu or YouTube video -- on a faster route at the expense of others. That could slow or even block services like online phone calls or video offered by less well-heeled companies.

In contrast, phone and cable firms note they've been investing billions in their networks to make broadband more available and reliable. Regulations from the federal government over how they use those networks, they say, could stifle innovation by denying a possible stream of revenue.

The telecommunications industry was largely mum about news of a possible Google-Verizon pact. The two have found great success together with the unleashing last fall of Google's Android operating system for the smartest web-surfing phones. Besides giving a challenge to Apple's iPhone exclusive to AT&T's wireless network, the Android is seen as a way to radically expand uses of the Internet on wireless devices.

Overland Park-based Sprint Nextel Corp. has filed comments with the FCC saying "marketplace forces are the best tool ... to promote innovation and investment in broadband and to ensure an open, consumer friendly Internet." A Washington-based spokesman for Sprint said the company has not taken a specific position on whether the FCC should regulate the sale of priority lanes on the Internet.

AT&T released a statement saying it was "disappointed that the net neutrality talks convened by the FCC have broken down. ... We put a number of significant concessions on the table and, despite today's setback, remain convinced that a consensus solution can be achieved."

To reach Scott Canon, call 816-234-4754 or send e-mail to scanon@kcstar.com.

To see more of The Kansas City Star, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.kansascity.com. Copyright (c) 2010, The Kansas City Star, Mo.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

While Jared Newman of PCWorld wrote:

If Google and Verizon really are conspiring to kill Net neutrality, as several reports suggest, both companies would bruise their reputations in the process.

Word of a deal or near-complete negotiations between Google and Verizon appeared in The Washington Post, The New York Times, Politico and Bloomberg, each publication citing anonymous sources. The stories all present slightly different versions of the facts, but they generally agree that Net neutrality -- the idea that all Internet traffic is treated equally -- would erode.

The New York Times' version is the most terrifying, claiming that Internet companies, such as Google, would be able to pay a fee to Verizon for faster delivery speeds on services like YouTube. If Verizon extended these kinds of deals to other companies, consumers could choose to pay more for these faster services in a premium package, says the Times.

All the reports note that the agreement wouldn't apply to mobile phones, meaning Verizon would be able to manage traffic as it pleases, with no intervention from Google.

A deal like this would put Google's reputation on the line. In the past, the company has defended the idea of an equal-access Internet, and in 2006 Google chief executive Eric Schmidt slammed "phone and cable monopolies" who "want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest."

Comments like those give the impression that Google's commercial interests were secondary to preserving a level playing field for all Internet companies. The supposed deal between Google and Verizon would jeopardize that impression if it allowed Google to pay extra for faster delivery.

Verizon, meanwhile, would start to look like the bad guy of mobile broadband. AT&T's troubles with the iPhone have given Verizon a favorable impression among consumers, but that could be squandered if it looks like Verizon is squashing innovation by giving preferential treatment to specific services. (This, of course, assumes that other carriers won't do the same thing, and that's a big assumption.)

There's enough discrepancy in the reports -- The Washington Post, for instance, says no prioritization would be allowed on fiber networks -- to hope that the Google-Verizon deal isn't as bad as it sounds. It better not be, if both companies want to stay in consumers' good graces.

Whatever can be said of Josh Silver's style of reportage, it is not as if he plucked this entirely out of thin air or just started howling at shadows for no reason. Furthermore, none of the major news sources which reported the story have offered anything resembling a retraction of their pieces. Neither has NPR, which aired their own broadcast of the story on the Morning Edition this past week.

[Dominus Atheos]

Because most of those sites are terrible journalists. And the Wall street Journal did post an update:

SAN FRANCISCO (Dow Jones)--Google Inc. (GOOG) and Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ) on Thursday denied a report saying the two companies were close to an agreement that would allow the carrier to speed up the delivery of online content to Internet users if content creators paid for the privilege.

The purported agreement, reported by the New York Times, would severely undercut the Internet tenet known as net neutrality, in which no form of content is favored over another. The Times suggested an agreement between Google and Verizon could lead to a new tiered system in which consumers pay higher costs for premium levels of service.

Verizon said in a statement that the article is "mistaken" and fundamentally misunderstands the company's purpose.

"Our goal is an Internet policy framework that ensures openness and accountability, and incorporates specific FCC authority, while maintaining investment and innovation," the statement said. "To suggest this is a business arrangement between our companies is entirely incorrect."

Times spokesperson Diane McNulty said the newspaper stood by its reporting, which is based on information from sources in a position to know about the conversations.

"Google's comment about the New York Times story refutes something the Times story didn't say," she said.

Google earlier strongly denied the Times story.

"We remain as committed as we always have been to an open Internet," said spokeswoman Mistique Cano. "The New York Times is quite simply wrong. We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google or YouTube traffic."

And if you had bothered to check that NPR link before you posted it, you'd see they updated it too.

This post was updated at 2:50 p.m. to reflect denials from Verizon and Google.

Verizon issued a statement Thursday, saying the the Times article was "mistaken" and "fundamentally misunderstands our purpose" in talking to Google.

... our goal is an Internet policy framework that ensures openness and accountability, and incorporates specific FCC authority ... .To suggest this is a business arrangement between our companies is entirely incorrect.

Google also denied making a deal. A company statement said that it has not talked to Verizon about "paying for carriage of Google or YouTube traffic" and that the company remains "committed" to "an open Internet."

Even Huffington Post posted a retraction:

Google, Verizon Deny Striking Web Deal That Could Upend Net Neutrality (UPDATED)

Google also denied it via Twitter:

@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.

If you insist that there's a conspiracy here, cooler heads discovered this when investigating the story:

Re: Preserving the Open Internet, GN Docket No. 09-191;
Framework for Broadband Internet Service, GN Docket No. 10-127

Dear Ms. Dortch:

On Tuesday, August 3, 2010, Tom Tauke, Executive Vice President - Public Affairs,
Policy and Communications for Verizon, and Rick Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media
Counsel for Google, met with Eddie Lazarus, Chief of Staff, Office of the Chairman, and Zachary
Katz, Legal Advisor to the Chairman, to discuss progress on potential legislative solutions for an
appropriate network neutrality regulatory framework consistent with our joint filing dated January
14, 2010.

That comes from a fax received by the FCC on the fourth of August sent by the Senior Vice President of Federal Regulatory Affairs for Verizon, Kathleen Grillo. It was sent to Marlene H. Dortch, who is a Federal Communications Commission Secretary.

That meeting was part of the documented discussions that the FCC is encouraging the interested parties of Net Neutrality to have so everyone can come up with a regulatory framework they can submit to Congress:

Since the D.C. Circuit’s decision in the Comcast Internet-discrimination case more than two months ago, there has been a vibrant debate among stakeholders from all parts of the broadband community on the best path forward. Some stakeholders have shared their ideas with staff at the Commission, including ideas for legislative options. Senior Commission staff are making themselves available to meet with all interested parties on these issues. To the extent stakeholders discuss proposals with Commission staff regarding other approaches outside of the open proceedings at the Commission, the agency’s ex parte disclosure requirements are not applicable. But to promote transparency and keep the public informed, we will post notices of these meetings here at blog.broadband.gov. As always, our door is open to all ideas and all stakeholders.

As you can see from the link, there have been several dozen such meetings, all documented by the FCC.

Any other crazy conspiracy theories you'd like to bring up today, or are you ready to crawl back in your hole?

[Executor32]

I came across a good article about this while arguing with one of my Facebook friends about this:

It's true that there's something going on between Google and Verizon regarding net neutrality, but it's not a business deal. While neither company is commenting specifically on what their discussions have been about, the information Google and Verizon provided makes the direction pretty clear.

The bottom line is this: Google would like to see network providers make provisions for certain types of traffic so that it can be delivered in a useful manner. Google is talking to Verizon because its FiOS service is very hot these days and provides very high-speed networking where consistent delivery is important for things like video.

This means that Google is looking for a way to have material such as video and voice services delivered with their priority set so that the material is still useful when it gets delivered. For example, if voice traffic suffers from too much latency or jitter in transit, it's nearly unintelligible to the listener. You've probably heard this kind of thing on a Skype call if you were on a bad connection or on a cell phone call when the cell user had a really crummy signal.

With video, delivery is also important, although interestingly it's not as sensitive to issues such as latency as voice. But when video doesn't get the delivery it needs, then you see the picture simply stop, or you see it dissolve into those blocks that you sometimes also see on your HDTV when an airplane flies over your antenna in just the right spot. But for reasons I won't go into here, our brains can deal with more interruption to video than to audio.

In either case, reliable delivery is important for these services to be usable. Google's belief, according to a statement made by CEO Eric Schmidt during an impromptu news conference on Aug. 4, is that network providers should be able to differentiate service types so that voice traffic gets delivered intact, for example, but not prioritize one provider's voice or video over another's.

What Schmidt is saying, in other words, is he thinks it's OK for networks to prioritize packets that need to be high priority due to their content. What this means is that network providers should be able to manage their networks to recognize packets that need to be a high priority for delivery and honor that priority.

If this sounds familiar it's probably because you're doing that in your enterprise already. You call it QOS (quality of service), and it's a critical feature for some types of traffic, especially the voice traffic that is handled by your VOIP (voice over IP) phone system. What Schmidt is suggesting is that Internet providers do the same thing.

Verizon, for its part, is also denying any sort of business deal with Google. More likely the two companies are hammering out a way to provide the priority some streaming traffic needs while remaining within the bounds of net neutrality. As eWEEK Senior Staff Writer Clint Boulton mentions in his story about the supposed Google-Verizon deal, both companies deny that anything nefarious is going on.

In fact, there's little to be gained by either company in setting up some sort of exclusive deal for Verizon to deliver Google's traffic in preference to other traffic. It would cost Verizon more money, and it's hard to see how the company would benefit. Google, meanwhile, doesn't really need more than it has now in terms of delivery, although it would probably help YouTube's video quality to get the video stream delivered reliably. But this is true for every ISP, not just Verizon, so setting up a deal just with Verizon wouldn't really help Google, either.

Instead, what will come out of the net neutrality discussions between the companies is an agreement in principle that network providers should be allowed to honor the priorities set for streaming traffic, as long as they do it for everybody. This doesn't give YouTube any kind of benefit over another video provider—after all, setting QOS levels on video or voice packets is hardly rocket science, and it doesn't take anything special in terms of equipment or software. All that's really required is a general agreement that it's OK, and for network providers to provision their routers to honor the priority settings.

So how did The New York Times manage to make this into a threat to net neutrality? It appears that the reporter was swayed by a single advocacy group, Public Knowledge. The group's claims regarding net neutrality have always been at the extreme end of the hard line, and the quotes in the Times article are no exception.

What's harder to understand is how a journalist could base a story on unsubstantiated claims from a single group with a stake in the outcome of the article. But The New York Times has always been fairly inept when it comes to covering technology, and its understanding of the issues involving net neutrality has been tenuous at best. In other words, we've gone through two days of kerfuffle based on sloppy reporting, lazy journalism and technology coverage from a publication that doesn't understand technology.

I should also add that apparently The New York Times doesn't actually understand the technology business, either. A key point in its story is the relationship between Google and Verizon because of its Droid devices that run Google's Android operating system. The problem with this is that there is no relationship between the two companies here. Verizon Wireless, which sells the Android devices, is a separate company. It's a joint venture between Verizon and Vodafone, and Verizon (the phone company) has no operational role in Verizon Wireless. You'd think that even a really junior reporter would take the trouble to learn this.

The bottom line is that all of this gnashing of teeth has had only one useful result, which was prodding the FCC to call off its secret talks about net neutrality. The fact that everything else about this story was just plain wrong doesn't make this right, but it was still a good outcome. The FCC should be public and upfront in its discussions about net neutrality. And meanwhile, The New York Times should stick to covering the New York social scene, where it has some expertise.

[Molyneux]

Glad to hear about this. I had been very worried for a bit there; I don't believe my local newspaper included this story (I initially heard about it on the Internet), or any updates on it. Caveat lector.

[phongn]

The full text of their joint legislative framework proposal is available here.

In short, the two companies have proposed transparency and non-discrimination requirements for wireline services but only transparency for wireless services.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

The full text of their joint legislative framework proposal is available here.

In short, the two companies have proposed transparency and non-discrimination requirements for wireline services but only transparency for wireless services.

Indeed. So the upshot is, wireless services can fuck the consumer over . . . as long as the fucking over is done in broad daylight. Sucks for the growing number of people who are coming to rely on wireless broadband to get to the internet, but totally awesome for the wireless providers whose regard for their customers is legendary.

[phongn]

Indeed. So the upshot is, wireless services can fuck the consumer over . . . as long as the fucking over is done in broad daylight. Sucks for the growing number of people who are coming to rely on wireless broadband to get to the internet, but totally awesome for the wireless providers whose regard for their customers is legendary.

It's a lot harder to scale wireless services, though (not the least due to limited frequency allocation) and it's a service that arguably needs some sort of prioritization. Phone calls share the same radio space as text messages and general data traffic but arguably should get higher priority.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Ars technica published a piece on this delightful little deal:

Even before Google and Verizon published their sweeping new Internet proposals for Congress, the net neutrality troops were out in force against the alliance.

"DON'T BE EVIL," proclaimed the Monday morning banner headline announcing the delivery of a petition signed by 300,000 people urging the search engine giant to back away from its alliance with Verizon.

"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."

But we don't need these press releases to report the obvious. The Google/Verizon manifesto claims to preserve "transparency" on the 'Net, but the only really transparent thing about the plan is that it is packed with so many loopholes, a deep packet inspection powered P2P blocker the size of an M1 Abrams tank could roll through it without disturbing a telco executive's nap.
Meaningful harm

Sure, the Google/Verizon press release proclaims that the proposal 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."

But the legislative document itself says the following (all italics are ours):

"In providing broadband Internet access service, a provider would be prohibited from engaging in undue discrimination against any lawful Internet content, application, or service in a manner that causes meaningful harm to competition or to users."

So who is going to decide what kind of harm is "meaningful"? Presumably the Federal Communications Commission, which gets to issue $2 million fines—except that under this plan the agency would enforce its components "through case-by-case adjudication, but would have no rulemaking authority with respect to those provisions."

"Parties would be encouraged to use nongovernmental dispute resolution processes established by independent, widely-recognized Internet community governance initiatives," the proposal continues, "and the FCC would be directed to give appropriate deference to decisions or advisory opinions of such groups."

In other words, some kind of organization dominated by Google and Verizon would decide what constitutes "meaningful harm," and the FCC would do what it tells them to do.
Rebut me

And yes, the "new nondiscrimination principle" the companies advocate "includes a presumption against prioritization of Internet traffic—including paid prioritization."

Except when it doesn't.

"Prioritization of Internet traffic would be presumed inconsistent with the non-discrimination standard, but the presumption could be rebutted," the fine print says.

And the scheme's definition of "reasonable network practices" includes "any technically sound practice... to address traffic that is unwanted by or harmful to users, the provider's network, or the Internet..." and... "to prioritize general classes or types of Internet traffic, based on latency; or otherwise to manage the daily operation of its network."

We're sorry, but we're seeing prioritization arrangements all over this language—from Comcast's plain old P2P blocking, which was clearly "unwanted" by that provider's network, to Cox cable's traffic prioritization experiment, in which the company notified users that "less time-sensitive traffic, such as file uploads, peer-to-peer and Usenet newsgroups," would be delayed during periods of congestion.

And we haven't even gotten to this canyon-sized loophole in the Verizon/Google plan:

A provider that offers a broadband Internet access service complying with the above principles could offer any other additional or differentiated services. Such other 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 FCC would be allowed to publish an annual survey "on the effect of these additional services" and "immediately report if it finds at any time that these services threaten the meaningful availability of broadband Internet access services or have been devised or promoted in a manner designed to evade these consumer protections."

But what exactly will these "additional or differentiated" services that ISPs could charge content providers extra cash for be? IP Video? The latest, coolest live conferencing app?

And to whom would the Commission "report"? We don't know. But again, since the proposal forbids the FCC from making any rules, we fear that the complaint will go to Verizon and Google and the rest of the winners circle, who will decide what these exemptible services will be, then give the Commission its marching orders.
Transparency except...

Finally, the Verizon/Google plan has a mechanism for transparency. "Providers of broadband Internet access service would be required to disclose accurate and relevant information in plain language about the characteristics and capabilities of their offerings, their broadband network management, and other practices necessary for consumers and other users to make informed choices..."

...which is the sole part of the whole shebang to which Verizon Wireless or any other wireless provider would have to adhere:

"Because of the unique technical and operational characteristics of wireless networks, and the competitive and still-developing nature of wireless broadband services, only the transparency principle would apply to wireless broadband at this time."
Decision time

Let's not forget something here—wireless broadband is the future. The FCC's National Broadband Plan cites studies projecting that with the next five years, the quantity of mobile data traffic in North America will jump by a factor 20 to 40 times the amount measured in 2009.

Agree or disagree about net neutrality, but surely nondiscrimination rules that do not cover wireless broadband delivery systems will become meaningless as 4G sweeps the country and most mobiles become application-packed smartphone devices.

As we write this, our Inbox continues to fill with outrage over the plan. Some praise came from the Technology Policy Institute.

"In my view, new regulation is not needed to preserve the open Internet," declared its president Thomas Lenard. "Nevertheless, the Verizon-Google proposal has to be viewed as a serious and constructive effort to address the policy impasse that the FCC has created for itself."

We asked the FCC for comment on the proposal. "Decline to comment at this time," came the response.

But FCC Commissioner Michael Copps has posted the following on the agency's site.

"Some will claim this announcement moves the discussion forward," Copps warned. "That's one of its many problems. It is time to move a decision forward—a decision to reassert FCC authority over broadband telecommunications, to guarantee an open Internet now and forever, and to put the interests of consumers in front of the interests of giant corporations."

So . . . yeah . . . based on this, at least, this Google/Verizon agreement seems to de-fang the FCC so it can't object when companies go right on producing a tiered, non-neutral, internet using the generous loopholes apparently provided for them to do so.

[Anguirus]

Well on the upside, isn't that last statement from Copps a big old "fuck you guys" from the FCC?

[Qwerty 42]

I've got a question about the proposal. The part of it that has people so outraged is the Wireless Broadband provision, which says that a wireless ISP doesn't need to follow the portions of the framework called the "Non-Discrimination Requirement."

However, even in that case, aren't the articles of the first provision still valid? If so, among these is

"A broadband Internet access service provider would be prohibited from preventing users of its broadband Internet access service from... receiving lawful content of their choice"

Wouldn't this prevent content blocking on a wireless device?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I've got a question about the proposal. The part of it that has people so outraged is the Wireless Broadband provision, which says that a wireless ISP doesn't need to follow the portions of the framework called the "Non-Discrimination Requirement."

However, even in that case, aren't the articles of the first provision still valid? If so, among these is

"A broadband Internet access service provider would be prohibited from preventing users of its broadband Internet access service from... receiving lawful content of their choice"

Wouldn't this prevent content blocking on a wireless device?

The proposal goes on to say that nothing but the requirement for transparency would apply to wireless broadband providers.

[Qwerty 42]

Well, that's embarrassing. I'd forgotten the specific wording of the Wireless Broadband provision.

[Patrick Degan]

Any other crazy conspiracy theories you'd like to bring up today, or are you ready to crawl back in your hole?

Really? As the rest of this thread has demonstrated —especially the Ars Technica link Terwinn provided (you remember, the site from which you yourself quoted), loopholes have been left in place which allow large companies to do exactly what was alleged in the initial reports and in broad daylight where wireless service is concerned.

And as the legislative proposal outlines WRT wireless:

Wireless Broadband: Because of the unique technical and operational characteristics of wireless networks, and the competitive and still-developing nature of wireless broadband services, only the transparency principle would apply to wireless broadband at this time. The U.S. Government Accountability Office would report to Congress annually on the continued development and robustness of wireless broadband Internet access services.

Case-By-Case Enforcement: The FCC would enforce the consumer protection and nondiscrimination requirements through case-by-case adjudication, but would have no rulemaking authority with respect to those provisions.

"Crazy conspiracy theory" you said? You mean like the way Comcast was doing exactly what was alleged large internet media corps could do, to BitTorrent:

Cable TV giant and Internet service provider Comcast Corp. has been accused of blocking -- or at least throttling -- traffic from subscribers trying to share files through the popular BitTorrent peer-to-peer network.

What's BitTorrent? BitTorrent is a networking protocol that lets users who download client software share (transmit and receive) files from other users. These shared files can be any type of file, but BitTorrent is well known for sharing MP3 music files, software applications, movies and other videos. Many of these files are copyrighted. BitTorrent is somewhat similar to the old Napster network that was used by millions of users to share MP3 files, but it doesn't use central servers. Instead, users download metadata files (torrents) related to the file they wish to get. Then the client software sends out a request to "trackers," which are computers that coordinate the transfer of the file -- typically in many different parts from among many peers.

So, if many of these files are being shared illegally, what's the big deal about blocking -- or throttling -- the traffic? BitTorrent Inc., founded by the creator of the protocol, emphasizes that BitTorrent can be used for legally sharing files that aren't copyrighted and even offers the protocol/software as a legitimate service for businesses. Many others in the Internet community also use the technology for legitimate purposes. For example, Blizzard uses the BitTorrent protocol to distribute updates and patches to its popular World of Warcraft game.

Then why is Comcast (reportedly) hindering this traffic? There are no exact numbers available, but some have claimed BitTorrent traffic comprises a significant portion of total Internet traffic. Comcast has limited bandwidth available for its millions of customers and has reportedly cut off service for some users who used more than their share of bandwidth. The company has admitted it restricts users who consume too much bandwidth (not specifically BitTorrent traffic) to ensure all of its customers receive adequate service, although it won't officially say what the limit is.

What is Comcast's reply? The company says it doesn't block peer-to-peer traffic, but it does practice "reasonable network management" to ensure quality service for all it subscribers.

What does the other side say? Claims of Comcast interference with BitTorrent traffic have been circulating for many months, at least, but the issue came to the forefront recently when the Associated Press published results of its own investigation into the issue. The AP concluded that Comcast was hindering BitTorrent traffic.

I don't use BitTorrent, so why should I care? The dispute points to a larger issue called Net neutrality. This is a contentious dispute about the kinds of controls that Internet service providers can put on their networks. Those advocating for the principle of Net neutrality generally want to keep providers from regulating what kind of traffic or level of traffic is allowed. They also don't want providers to be able to charge different rates for different levels of service -- so consumers or companies would have to pay more to be guaranteed certain minimum levels of download/upload speed, for example. Those opposing Net neutrality generally maintain that some kind of control is necessary to promote improvements in equipment and services and guarantee minimum levels of performance. Others believe providers have the right to manage traffic on their network, but argue that -- especially in the Comcast case -- they should be more upfront about what they're doing.

What else is going on? Besides BitTorrent traffic, Comcast has been accused of blocking or throttling Lotus Notes traffic. Also, complaints about Comcast interfering with BitTorrent traffic have been filed with the FCC by online video distributor Vuze and the group Public Knowledge and other members of the Open Internet Coalition.

Where are things going from here? Comcast was recently sued by a California man for interfering in file sharing. At the time of this writing, Comcast hadn't officially commented on the suit. If the litigation proceeds, it could reveal details about exactly what Comcast is doing and eventually result in legislation or an FCC ruling to settle the legality of the practice.

So, no, not conspiracy theory. Media corporations can hardly be said to be engaging in dark, secret conspiracies when they're rather openly acting or writing legislation proposals which allow them plenty of room to do whatever the fuck they want.

Oh, and BTW, HuffPo didn't exactly retract the earlier report, they only updated the story with the Google and Verizon issued denials of the reported agreement, and then continued to report the varying statements. Let's just do a little context-restoration, shall we:

UPDATED: Google Public Policy countered the New York Times' report in a tweet. "@NYTimes is wrong," Google Public Policy wrote. "We've not had any convos with VZN about paying for carriage of our traffic. We remain committed to an open internet."

Companies and the press have offered contradictory accounts of the negotiations between Google and Verizon. Get a full rundown of who has said what here.

--
WASHINGTON -- Google Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. are close to finalizing a proposal for so-called "network neutrality" rules, which would dictate how broadband providers treat Internet traffic flowing over their lines, according to a person briefed on the negotiations.

A deal could be announced within days, said the person, who did not want to be identified because negotiations are still ongoing.

The exact terms of the deal are unclear. According to The New York Times, the agreement between Google and Verizon "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." Under this deal, "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 New York Times explains, noting that Internet users might eventually pay a higher price for service as a result. Meanwhile, Bloomberg reports that the two companies have been negotiating a deal that would affect how Verizon handles content traveling via its mobile networks: "The compromise as described would restrict Verizon from selectively slowing Internet content that travels over its wires, but wouldn’t apply such limits to Internet use on mobile phones, according to the people, who spoke yesterday and asked not to be identified before an announcement."

Any deal that is reached could form the basis for federal legislation and would likely shape efforts by the Federal Communications Commission to broker an agreement on the contentious issue, which has pitted the nation's big phone and cable companies against many big Internet companies.

The FCC has been holding talks with a handful of large phone, cable and Internet companies - including Verizon and Google - to try to reach some sort of industrywide compromise on net neutrality that all sides can accept. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is seeking to adopt rules that would require phone and cable companies to give equal treatment to all broadband traffic traveling over their networks.

Public interest groups and a number of big Internet companies, including Google and online calling service Skype, say such rules are needed to prevent broadband providers from becoming online gatekeepers. They are particularly concerned that the phone and cable companies could start charging extra for priority access, or could slow or even block Internet phone calls, online video and other Web services that compete with their core businesses.

But the phone and cable companies argue that after investing billions in their networks, they need to be able earn a return on their massive investments by offering premium services. They also insist that they need flexibility to manage network traffic so that high-bandwidth applications don't eat up too much capacity and slow down their systems for everyone else.

While there is consensus that broadband providers should not be allowed to block or degrade Internet traffic, the FCC talks have yet to produce an agreement. Two big sticking points center on whether broadband providers should be allowed to offer premium services and whether net neutrality rules should apply to wireless networks, which tend to have more bandwidth constraints than landline systems.

In a statement Wednesday, Verizon said it has been in talks with Google for nearly 10 months to try to strike some sort of compromise on net neutrality. It added that it remains committed to the discussions taking place at the FCC and is "optimistic this process will reach a consensus that can maintain an open Internet and the investment and innovation required to sustain it."

Google had no comment.

Google and Verizon are already business partners since Google's Android operating system powers Verizon Wireless's Droid smartphone. The Droid is the biggest competitor to Apple Inc.'s iPhone, which is available only through AT&T Wireless in the U.S.

An FCC statement said only that "the broad stakeholder discussions continue to actively include Google and Verizon."

AT&T Inc., which is also taking part in the FCC talks, said it is "not a party to the purported agreement between Google and Verizon" and remains "committed to trying to reach a consensus on this issue through the FCC process."

Several public interest groups, meanwhile, voiced concerns that a deal between Verizon and Google would allow broadband providers to offer premium services and would not apply to wireless networks. Josh Silver, founder and president of the group Free Press, warned that an agreement would amount to "a bold grab for market power by two monopolistic players" and would "effectively create two Internets where application and content innovators have to ask Verizon and Google for permission to reach mobile Internet customers."

"The point of a network neutrality rule is to prevent big companies from dividing the Internet between them," said Gigi Sohn, president and co-founder of the group Public Knowledge. "We do not need rules to protect Google and Verizon, but we need a rule to protect the customers of Google and Verizon and the competitors of Google and Verizon."

The talks at the FCC are also focused on establishing the agency's authority to regulate broadband. The agency has been scrambling to develop a new regulatory framework since a federal appeals court in April cast doubt on its jurisdiction over broadband - including its ability to mandate net neutrality - under existing rules.

So, as rebuttal, you offer up a pair of public denials and only the very first slice of a HuffPo article stripped of context but which you say is a retraction of their initial story, and a fax which says next to nothing. Pathetic. But this eWeek article from August 12th paints a different picture:

Google, Verizon Net Neutrality Proposal: 10 Things That Should Scare You

By: Don Reisinger
2010-08-12

Google and Verizon have a net neutrality idea that is causing heated debate in the tech space. Read why their proposal includes ideas that should seem scary to the average Web user.

There is a heated debate emerging over the proposal by Google and Verizon over how net neutrality issues should be handled going forward. The proposal outlines several ways in which the Internet can be governed to ostensibly help deliver a better experience to Web users.

Those in support of what Google and Verizon announced say that it makes some sense. They believe that both companies are looking out for the best interests of users, and the proposal is in no way nefarious.

Critics couldn't disagree more with supporters. They say that Google has effectively "sold out" Web users and those who support keeping a level playing field for Internet access. They believe supporters of the net neutrality proposal are putting an inordinate amount of trust in two companies that have a vested interest in staying dominant.

Regardless of the side of the debate one falls on, it's hard to debate that there are some blatantly scary things in the proposal. And although the abstract of the proposal seems innocuous, a further look at the companies' detailed plans reveals several concerning elements that could have a measurable negative impact on all stakeholders.

Let's take a look at some of the things that should scare Web users about Google and Verizon's net neutrality proposal.

1. It makes Google stronger

There's little debating that if the proposal that was drawn up by Google and Verizon becomes the law of the land, it would help the search giant immensely. The full description of the plan allows for preferential treatment being given to certain services by ISPs. The basic description in the document says that prioritization of Web traffic "would be presumed inconsistent with the non-discrimination standard." But Google and Verizon follow that up with a clause that says, "Other additional or differentiated services ... could include traffic prioritization." One of those "differentiated services" could include video—a key aspect of Google's business. In essence, Google and Verizon are giving ISPs a wide opening to offer preferential treatment for certain types of Web traffic. And in most cases, that will only help the search giant.

2. ISPs couldn't be happier

If the net neutrality proposal drafted by Google and Verizon becomes a regulation, ISPs will benefit heavily. Not only would they have all the control in the marketplace, but they would also be able to potentially generate more revenue, since they could conceivably charge more for better service. ISPs might not be as bad as some critics say, but giving them more power doesn't seem all that beneficial to the average Web user.

3. The big companies benefit most

It's hard to see where Google and Verizon's proposal helps small companies. Because it allows ISPs to have a proverbial "toll road" on the Internet, it gives companies with big budgets or backing from venture capitalists the ability to provide a better service. Small startups won't have that luxury and would conceivably deliver a less ideal experience. Google and Verizon say the Web shouldn't be a place where ISPs can "discriminate against" applications or services. But then it sets a high legal bar to prove discrimination. In order for discrimination to occur on the Internet, they wrote in the proposal, affected companies must be able to prove "meaningful harm." Even better, Google doesn't want the FCC to decide what makes harm "meaningful." So, evidently, the company would allow those committing the harm against small sites or services to decide if it's really meaningful. Does that sound fair?

4. Anything goes on wireless networks

Wireless networks are kept out of the so-called protections Google is offering to the Internet. By leaving wireless networks out, it gives all the power to the service provider to do what it wants, when it wants on those networks. That might not be a major problem right now, but there's little debating that wireless access will guide the future of the industry. If more and more people start accessing networks over WiFi and they are being totally controlled by ISPs, a troubling scenario could ensue.

5. Traffic blocking could be commonplace

Blocking Web traffic could potentially be commonplace, especially on mobile networks, under the new proposal set forth by Google and Verizon. Of course, supporters of it say that such a claim is nonsense, since the companies said that ISPs can't block sites. But by giving ISPs the ability to do what they want, when they want on wireless networks, they are effectively allowed to block any site they want without any fear of recourse in that realm. That will be something to watch out for if Google's proposal becomes law.

6. Everything will change on the Web

Whether the supporters of the net neutrality proposal agree or not, the Internet as it is known today works. Any site, no matter the size or bandwidth usage, is being treated equally. And because of that, it allows the Google, Yahoo and Facebook wannabes of the world to have a fighting chance at becoming a major business. Under the new proposal, all that could change. Startups would have the deck stacked against them. It's unfortunate. And it seems that Google forgot where it came from.

7. What happens to the future?

Speaking of that, there is a real possibility that innovation on the Internet could be stymied if the Google-Verizon proposal becomes the regulatory basis for net neutrality. If entrepreneurs realize that starting a Web company is harder than ever and if the chances of a big company allowing a small firm to even get close to matching it are slim, why should those folks start the new company? The promise of the Internet's freedom and level playing field has lured entrepreneurs for years. If net neutrality legislation takes aim at those entrepreneurs, they will undoubtedly go elsewhere.

8. It keeps the FCC at bay

The FCC may be the only organization that can help save network neutrality right now. But Google and Verizon's proposal includes several references to their desire to keep the federal organization out of the loop. In fact, if a Website or online service provider believes that they are facing the aforementioned "meaningful harm," Google would encourage them "to use nongovernmental dispute resolution processes established by independent, widely recognized Internet community governance initiatives." It gets better: "The FCC would be directed to give appropriate deference to decisions or advisory opinions of such groups."

9. Google isn't on the 'good' side

Google has made it known that it wants to be the "good" company in the face of evil. But by striking an agreement with Verizon on its proposal, some believe that the search giant isn't coming down on the "good" side. That's unfortunate. Google should be the company that leads the charge on the Web and fights for the cause of net neutrality. Instead, it has effectively aligned itself with ISPs. Most who care about the net neutrality debate don't believe ISPs are on the "good" side.

10. Google has influence in Washington

The good thing about the Google-Verizon proposal is that it isn't law, and neither company has the authority to set policy. But that doesn't mean that something extremely similar won't become a regulation. Google has significant influence both in the White House and in Congress. In fact, its CEO, Eric Schmidt, sits on the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. There are also several former Google employees working in various levels in the Obama administration. The search giant has influence in Washington. And it might rely upon that influence to push its agenda through. That wouldn't be a good thing for Web users.

Meanwhile, as The Washington Post reported August 10th:

Google, net neutrality evangelist, hedges in accord with Verizon

By Cecilia Kang
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Google has long presented itself as looking out for the little guy. It easily could have used its wealth and power to gain preferential treatment from Internet providers but always said it would not, because that could prevent the next startup in a Silicon Valley garage from enjoying similar success.

But as Google has gotten bigger and entered new lines of business, it has revised some of its principles -- and it is drawing criticism from startups and public interest groups along the way.

Google and Verizon Communications on Monday confirmed that they've put aside their differences and agreed that rules ensuring equal access to the Internet shouldn't apply to mobile phones. They said a company like Google also could strike a deal to pay for more capacity on a carrier's network for zippier downloads of their own sites over those of competitors.

That means Verizon could block an application such as Microsoft's Bing search service from its subscribers' mobile phones, or it could charge consumers extra for access to certain popular applications delivered at better quality than other Web sites.

But analysts pointed out that even if Google doesn't take up that practice, its agreement could lay the groundwork for other companies. Firms could pay providers such as Verizon for extra space on their "pipeline" into American homes, they said.

"We both recognize that wireless is in a slightly different place than wireline," Verizon chief executive Ivan Seidenberg said in a news media call. "What we're concerned about is the imposition of too many rules up front that would not allow us to optimize . . . the supercharged growth we've seen in the past."

Closing ranks

The announcement illustrates a shift in direction for Google, which has been the corporate evangelist for open network practices, particularly on wireless networks. Three years ago, Google's top executives were lobbying the Federal Communications Commission to break open the closed nature of wireless networks, with rules that would allow a consumer to put any wireless device on any network and access any software or Web site.

But now that Google has partnered with Verizon Wireless to make cellphones based on its Android software, the fastest-selling smartphone platform currently, the search company says it understands the unique bandwidth constraints on mobile networks. This is the big frontier, where analysts say Google needs to extend the cash-machine ad service that has experienced such great success with desktop Internet users. In their announcement, the Internet giants said that "net neutrality" rules, as they are called, would be too "onerous" for the mobile phone market.

"There is a lot of concern that the flexibility that Google is willing to give on wireless is . . . because they feel they have a path forward in their commercial dealings," said Rebecca Arbogast, head of tech-policy research for investment firm Stifel Nicolaus.

The companies' proposal is meant to be a legislative blueprint for a law overseeing broadband service providers such as AT&T, Comcast and Verizon. The companies said Congress should empower the FCC to be the traffic cop making sure consumers have equal access to Web content from their home computers, and meting out fines of up to $2 million on companies that block or give priority to some Web sites on the Internet.

Other companies have argued for the same rules to apply on mobile networks. Skype, for example, has argued in meetings with the FCC that the agency should prevent carriers from blocking services such as its own from the iPad and from the Droid or other smartphones.

The embattled FCC, which saw its authority over the Internet challenged by a federal court ruling earlier this year in a case involving Comcast, has been hoping for an industry-led proposal to be adopted by Congress.

Some public interest groups said the Google-Verizon pact comes up short on the mobile side of the equation.

"The companies' plan puts wireless Internet service into a regulatory no-go zone and offers only toothless protection," said Leslie Harris, president of the Center for Democracy and Technology.

A spokeswoman for FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski declined to comment on the deal. But Democratic Commissioner Michael J. Copps criticized the chairman's negotiations, saying the agency should push forward on a proposal to re-regulate broadband providers.

"Some will claim this announcement moves the discussion forward. That's one of its many problems," Copps said. "It is time to move a decision forward -- a decision to reassert FCC authority over broadband telecommunications, to guarantee an open Internet now and forever, and to put the interests of consumers in front of the interests of giant corporations."

Google's statements stand in stark contrast to earlier ones made by the company's executives, who have expanded the company's policy and lobbying shop in Washington in recent years to battle in favor of net neutrality against telecommunications and cable giants. But as new business opportunities emerged, Google's perspective on the policy seemed to change.

In 2007, founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin lobbied then-FCC Chairman Kevin Martin to attach net neutrality rules to its auctions of wireless airwaves. Google officials have testified at FCC and congressional hearings that fair rules of the road need to be in place to keep Internet service providers from becoming "gatekeepers" of the Web, favoring their own business interests. Google in 2008 bid $4.6 billion for airwaves with open-access conditions to underscore its commitment to a future open mobile wireless industry.

"We believe it's important to put our money where our principles are," Schmidt said in a news release on Nov. 30, 2007.

Then, in November, Google announced a broad partnership with Verizon Wireless to jointly develop and market Android phones, a then-nascent software platform hoping to eat into the success of Apple's iPhone. Since then, Schmidt has changed his tune, analysts said.

Schmidt and Seidenberg jointly filed comments to the FCC in November on proposed net neutrality regulation, saying they had reached "common ground" on some aspects of network management. At that point, Google didn't say that it endorsed unregulated wireless network rules but that the partnership had opened its eyes to the unique technical constraints of mobile networks.

As their partnership deepened, so did their agreement on policy. In a March guest op-ed jointly penned for The Wall Street Journal, Schmidt and Seidenberg said they agreed that the federal government should abstain from overstretching rules in the fast-growing broadband industry.

"While our two companies don't agree on every issue, we do agree generally as a matter of policy that the framework of minimal government involvement should continue," they said.

That article post-dates the Google tweet you've planted your flag upon by five days, and the Reisenger piece for eWeek by seven.

Try again.