Two of the largest U.S. providers of broadband and broadband services, search-engine giant Google and telecom carrier Verizon, challenged yesterday the country's telecoms supervisory FCC (Federal Communications Commission) by announcing a joint proposal for new rules for operators and broadband providers.
Proposal, Verizon-Google Legislative Framework Proposal, violates FCC web neutrality.
The basic is that everyone should have access to all legal content and legal applications of the legal device (PCs, mobile phones and so on) be selected.
Moreover, it should be free choice of access provider. In September 2009 proposed FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski that access providers should not be able to discriminate against any lawful content or applications, and that they should be obliged to provide clients with insights into how they handle network traffic.
Genachowski argued for these principles must apply to all access providers, including mobile operators.
The last requirement is contrary to the prevailing business model for mobile operators worldwide, who just goes out to climb the value chain, and earn money to prioritize their own services - music, content, games and more - to their subscribers.
A narrow interpretation of the FCC's view of network neutrality is also in conflict with the business model of companies that offer Internet access over fiber: They offer to pack where web access is combined with closed content services like television and movie rentals, where it is assumed that these services can not be disturbed by normal Internet traffic.
Operators argue that the FCC network neutrality prevents them from innovation, partly because it lets them create their own packages of priority services to attract customers. They argue that a narrow interpretation of network neutrality does not offer any guidance on what to do when the network resources is overloaded, and also points out that subscribers to video services need to be able allowed to pay extra for a warranty that produces a promised quality, even when other traffic requires all the available bandwidth.
Google and Verizon describes his proposal as an attempt to create rules for both content providers and network operators, while enforcing network neutrality to the extent practically possible.
It opens thus to repeat the FCC principle that everyone should have access to all legal content and legal applications from the legal unit be selected.
Then the proposal deviates from the strict net neutrality.
There shall longer be prohibition any discrimination of lawful content but only «inappropriate» Discrimination («undue disc Rimi nation»). This section is a little gem in fog chat:
Prioritization of Internet traffic Would ask presumed inconsistent with the non-disc Rimi nation standard, but the presumption rebutted Could request.
With second words: Something prioritizing certain types traffic or services be allowed.
One explanation comes in the section on network operations.
Unlike the FCC beats Google and Verizon stated that access providers will be able to control traffic in their networks, for example if there is congestion or danger to overload, if there is danger to the security, if there is traffic that could harm users or " that users do not want "to ensure quality of service to users (such as streaming music or videos) or to secure the services in accordance with customers' choice.
In other words,: Customers will be able to pay for services with quality guarantee.
That suggestion also requires that customers be given a full insight into how traffic and services a priority in practice, is not particularly surprising: It is a condition that the customer should be able to compare competing suppliers.
When it comes to wireless broadband, switches proposal simply states that only the principle of transparency should apply: The operators will be free to discriminate against content and services, in open violation of even the most diluted the definition of net neutrality.
Tele Authority FCC already wing clip relative to broadband services. Google and Verizon suggest simply that the audit shall be deprived of supervision of services and content, and that jurisdiction shall be limited to the actual access to the Internet. Here, the FCC only commit supervision. It should not have any independent regulatory authority. Disputes related to the prioritization of traffic to be solved by new bodies outside official control, established by the industry itself.
The FCC has not yet commented initiative to Google and Verizon.
The proposal to Google and Verizon have significance for the world.
European Commissioner Neelie Kroes, who is responsible for the EU's ongoing open consultation about your neutrality, has declared repeatedly that she is following developments in the U.S. very closely, since the problem is the same on both sides of the Atlantic.
Many will choose to interpret Google and Verizon's initiative as an attempt to reconcile net neutrality with today's practical reality, especially in wireless access where bandwidth will be a scarcity factor in the foreseeable future.
Others may fear that the proposal forms the start of a trend in which the open Internet is reduced to poor crumbs, and where the essential services are reserved for those who can pay more.
