Google and Verizon have released a joint public policy proposal for the open Internet outlining how broadband providers can control how their users receive content. The proposal, which was announced earlier today by the companies' CEOs in a conference call, is meant as a legal framework. It intends to please consumers who want to choose what they access on the Internet and how, but is still a compromise, and thus the most fundamentalist net neutrality advocates might still have some battles on their hands.

The proposal we're seeing is starkly different from what was described in The New York Times article from last week that accused Google and Verizon of conspiring to upend the principles of net neutrality. We didn't believe it even then, and Google CEO Eric Schmidt said in the conference call that "almost all" of what the NYT reported was "completely wrong." In particular, he stressed that this is not a business deal at all between Verizon and Google, but simply a joint policy statement.

You can read identical blog posts from Google and Verizon at their respective policy blogs, or go straight to the framework proposal that's hosted on Scribd, which we've embedded below.

What's in the Proposal?

The policy suggests that "wireline broadband" services like Verizon's FiOS cannot prevent users from "sending and receiving lawful content of their choice," "running lawful applications and using lawful services of their choice," or "connecting their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network or service, facilitate theft of service, or harm other users of the service." Furthermore, it insists on absolute transparency as to how the network is regulating its traffic and the distribution of content to its users.

Google and Verizon agree that broadband providers cannot engage in "discrimination against any lawful Internet content, application, or service in a manner that causes meaningful harm to competition or to users." That would by default include prioritization of Internet traffic, but that could be challenged on a case-by-base basis.

There are some provisions for "reasonable network management." That could include "any technically sound practice" to improve network performance, to stop data that is unwanted by or harmful to the user, and of course to block illegal content. Proponents of peer-to-peer file sharing like BitTorrent will not be pleased to know that one of the provisions is for the prioritization of "general classes or types of Internet traffic, based on latency" — something for which Comcast and other providers have gotten flak.

The proposal also clarifies and supports FCC authority in regulating the Internet — important in the wake of Comcast's recent court win — and names several instances in which reports should be made to legislators to help them remain vigilant in keeping the rules fair for consumers. Both companies outline a commitment to increasing broadband adoption in the U.S. as well.

Schmidt said that a more detailed proposal will be released within a couple of days, and Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg said Verizon will adopt everything in the proposal as part of its corporate policy.

What About Wireless?

The first point of contention in this proposal is its special rules for wireless broadband services. Google and Verizon essentially say that because wireless broadband (the Internet access you receive on your mobile phone) is still a young market, it's too early to apply most of the above standards.

Seidenberg said, "Imposition of too many rules up front would not allow us to optimize this network in a fashion that would supercharge the growth we've seen in the past."

The only point listed above that still applies explicitly to wireless data networks is the transparency standard. That's welcome for sure — essential, even — but open Internet advocates will not be pleased that it's all they're getting.

Google and Verizon have attempted to minimize the concern by reminding consumers that "the Government Accountability Office would be required to report to Congress annually on developments in the wireless broadband marketplace, and whether or not current policies are working to protect consumers."

One can only hope that those reports would help to prevent developing technologies from circumventing the distinction between wired and wireless broadband that Google and Verizon have made. Take Sprint's 4G network, for example; it serves mobile phones like the HTC EVO 4G, but it also serves as a traditional broadband provider for homes in some markets. Which is it, and which set of rules would apply? Future Verizon technologies could blur the distinction just as easily.

A Way Out?: Provisions for "Additional Online Services"

The proposal's points about "additional online services" could be another area of serious contention. In fact, many of the journalists on the conference call expressed concern about it. Verizon and Google have agreed that wireline broadband providers can offer "additional online services" that don't operate within these rules as long as they are "distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband Internet access service."

Such services don't exist yet, but examples given included "health care monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services, or new entertainment and gaming options."

Because the distinction between these and what Google and Verizon call "the public Internet" is vague, net neutrality advocates may fear that this provision will give broadband providers a way to sidestep the rules. However, the proposal also suggests that the FCC "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."

Schmidt insisted that though Google has acknowledged providers' rights to deploy these additional services, Google is only interested in operating within the public Internet.

"Verizon-Google Legislative Framework Proposal" on Scribd





