Google has struck a blow against the principle of net neutrality by proposing that mobile network operators should be allowed to control the speeds at which content is delivered to mobile devices.
Net neutrality is the principle that all internet traffic should be delivered on equal terms, without bias for certain publishers’ content.
Together with US mobile carrier Verizon, Google argues that while the US internet regulator — the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) — should retain control and ensure neutrality for wired broadband services, the same rules “ would not now apply … to wireless”.
The deal with Verizon was leaked last week and promptly denied by Google chief executive Eric Schmidt, who said the company remained “committed to an open internet”.
Schmidt and Verizon chief executive Ivan Seidenberg both said on a conference call that their proposal does not represent a business arrangement and there are no plans to provide Verizon consumers with a dedicated pipeline to watch YouTube videos and other Google products.
“As far as we’re concerned, there would be no paid prioritisation of any traffic over the Internet,” said Seidenberg.
But it would allow companies to make private arrangements with service and application providers to let them offer differentiated services outside of what they are calling the “public Internet”.
“Examples of this could be very highly sophisticated healthcare monitoring services, or smart grid services or super advanced educational type things, or even entertainment services,” Seidenberg said.
Apple’s exclusive US iPhone carrier, AT&T said was not party to this proposal, but did not outright oppose it.
“The Verizon-Google agreement demonstrates that it is possible to bridge differences on this issue,” said spokeswoman Claudia Jones.
The deal has been widely condemned, both by bloggers, who have accused Google of selling out, and consumer campaigners.
Andy Schwartzman, head of the Media Access Project said it was yet another failure to protect wireless Internet users.
“That alone makes this arrangement a nonstarter,” he said.
John Bergmayer, staff attorney at Public Knowledge, a digital rights group, said the key phrase is “public internet.
“The companies seem to want to divide the Internet yet further — not just between wired and wireless, but between ‘the public Internet’ and ‘additional online services’,” he said.
“By carving out and redefining whole sections of the Internet and undermining the FCC, it actively undermines net neutrality, and tilts the landscape in favour of those companies who can afford to tangle with ISPs ‘case by case’ or to have their applications characterised as ‘additional online services’.”
A spokeswoman for the FCC declined to comment.
The FCC has been trying for about a year to draft new rules for how Internet traffic should be managed on telephone, cable and wireless devices. That effort was thrown into disarray in April when a court ruled the FCC overstepped its bounds by sanctioning Comcast Corp for blocking bandwidth-hogging online applications.
But failure to agree on rules for wireless devices — which has broad implications for Silicon Valley, media companies and others trying to determine their next investments — is one of the major reasons the talks at the FCC failed.
Handheld devices is a lucrative business for companies expecting growth in wireless broadband Internet services, especially businesses like Google which relies almost entirely on internet advertising for its revenues and has invested heavily in its Android OS for mobile devices, most of which are on Verizon’s network.
[Additional reporting by Reuters / photo: Google CEO Eric Schmidt by Jolie O’Dell; some rights reserved]
