

Google Public Policy Blog: A joint policy proposal for an open Internet - pierrefar
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-for-open-internet.html

======
moultano
This seems like the sticky bit:

 _Fifth, we want the broadband infrastructure to be a platform for innovation.
Therefore, our proposal would allow broadband providers to offer additional,
differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video
services (such as Verizon's FIOS TV) offered today. This means that broadband
providers can work with other players to develop new services. It is too soon
to predict how these new services will develop, but examples might include
health care monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services, or new
entertainment and gaming options. Our proposal also includes safeguards to
ensure that such online services must be distinguishable from traditional
broadband Internet access services and are not designed to circumvent the
rules. The FCC would also monitor the development of these services to make
sure they don’t interfere with the continued development of Internet access
services._

It seems reasonable, but this is a subtle distinction. Prioritizing internet
traffic isn't allowed, but selling services that might get priority over
internet traffic is, so long as they aren't called "internet." I guess the
hope is that the internet will always be important enough that they'll never
throttle the whole thing or risk losing business, hence the FCC monitoring bit
at the end.

~~~
ismarc
I think it's easiest to think about in terms of AT&T UVerse (an easy example).
You have TV, Internet and VoIP service delivered over the same network
connection. TV and VoIP (the VoIP isn't carried over the Internet, instead
it's direct to the internal switching network and just happens to use IP for
the packets) are independent of Internet access. TV and the VoIP service can
be prioritized as needed, but Internet is just Internet and is only
prioritized in relation to the other services (i.e., all Internet traffic is
prioritized identically for a connection).

I actually like this distinction. It will encourage more broadband rollout as
companies add more services that use the same infrastructure but aren't used
for just "dumb pipes".

~~~
symesc
Couldn't agree more.

I have TV and Internet services on Telus' network here in Canada (I think they
use the same platform that AT&T uses, which is a Microsoft IPTV solution).

TV and Internet come through the same connection at my house as a shared pool
of bandwidth. They are sold separately, and TV actually hinders Internet
performance.

I have 25Mbps down, total (which is freeeaking awesome for the price, about
$50/month). Each HDTV channel used consumes 5Mbps. So if we are watching two
TVs, we'll see only 15Mbps remaining for other data services.

I have no issue with this, either in practice or in principle.

In practice, Telus backs up the bandwidth truck and unloads it at my house
every month, and I can't consume it all.

In principle, the market will decide whether to support the model longer term.

I for one won't hesitate to turf the dedicated TV services if Internet
services can equal it in terms of quality/availability/price. But until then,
I'm happy.

~~~
MarkPilgrim
> I have 25Mbps down, total (which is freeeaking awesome for the price, about
> $50/month).

Everyone in America hates you right now. Just FYI. :)

~~~
ori_b
Everyone in Canada hates him too - this sort of connection isn't the norm. For
example, see Rogers and Sympatico pricing. They have a monopoly on the Toronto
area, mostly.

~~~
teamonkey
Videotron has the cable monopoly in Quebec. It's fast and reliable but man is
it expensive.

------
JangoSteve
EDIT: My notes below are mostly "what if" scenarios possible with this
legislation. But I like this legislation and its intent by and large. These
were just the most interesting things for me to comment on.

 _Fifth, we want the broadband infrastructure to be a platform for innovation.
Therefore, our proposal would allow broadband providers to offer additional,
differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video
services (such as Verizon's FIOS TV) offered today._

moultano already made one observation [1], I'll add that this point could get
even stickier. Say Google partners with Verizon on their Google Health service
to create a "Health Channel" service on Verizon, which ensures that
subscribers get priority access to health information, you know, because
that's important stuff, so it's in the consumer's best interest. And let's say
it has enough of a differentiation from general internet access that the FCC
allows it. Now, you've effectively prioritized Google Health over any other
enterprising startups in the online health record space, which goes completely
against the _intent_ of this proposed legislation.

Ok, so maybe the FCC will have the foresight to disallow this type of
additional "service". But I have trouble imagining any type of additional
service that doesn't somehow encroach on this problem.

Furthermore, I have a little trouble with this bit as well:

 _The FCC would also monitor the development of these services to make sure
they don’t interfere with the continued development of Internet access
services._

So, if some communications company currently provides internet access, but
then they find that the "added services over IP" space is more profitible than
general internet access, it seems they have two choices. Continue pumping
resources into their less profitible internet access service such that the FCC
is content, or shut down general access completely and ONLY offer the
differentiated services. Did I misinterpret this part?

And finally Part 7:

 _Seventh, and finally, we strongly believe that it is in the national
interest for all Americans to have broadband access to the Internet.
Therefore, we support reform of the Federal Universal Service Fund, so that it
is focused on deploying broadband in areas where it is not now available._

Ah, there's where Google's agenda becomes apparent within this legislation
(you know, in addition to the fact that they've always been publicly pro-net-
neutrality). Of course, I like this part of their agenda, so more power to
them.

[1] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1588799>

~~~
lars512
I think the "differentiated online services" part is a reasonable compromise,
and they say there are safeguards and limits in place.

Your broadband provider is in the unique position of having super-cheap
bandwidth directly to you, cheaper and faster than the vanilla internet they
can provide. They'll be forbidden to prioritise one site over another, or to
discriminate against individual sites. The question really is, do you want to
_forbid_ them from selling useful services based around this cheap bandwidth?
That's what IPTV and health imaging are all about.

Enterprising startups in these spaces already have barriers to entry based
around cost. They can either wait for the bandwidth to become cheaper, try to
cut similar deals, or come up with a way of providing these services without
the same bandwidth needs.

~~~
lagubya
It is like saying, since I am the ISP, providing you broadband, my services
have the right to be successful in comparison to others.

And I'll use the money you pay for my privileged services to reduce the price
for internet access..

------
shimon
I think this is Google and Verizon saying "we're afraid some idiots are going
write some idiotic laws, so here's a not-completely-idiotic reference
implementation to help make sure nobody does anything stupid".

------
nanairo
Google agrees that having an open internet has been beneficial to the
development of the internet. But somehow this is not needed for wireless
broadband because there already is a lot of competition? What???

~~~
wmf
No, they believe that _regulation_ is not needed because they believe that
competing wireless broadband providers will be forced to offer openness by the
market.

~~~
jsz0
Competing wireless providers? In the US we effectively have a duopoly of AT&T
and Verizon. The fall off to T-Mobile/Sprint in terms of coverage is dramatic.
There may be some spots where you have 4 good choices but for many of us it's
AT&T or Verizon if we want acceptable service & speeds. Both AT&T and Verizon
mimic each other's pricing structures and policies. We just need to look at
Sprint who is trying to offer lower prices and faster speeds yet is still
losing money. The duopoly owns the most valuable chip -- coverage. The other
players are at a permanent disadvantage because they can't grow with
inadequate coverage nor can they address the coverage problem with poor
growth.

------
jsz0
_Sixth, we both recognize that wireless broadband is different from the
traditional wireline world, in part because the mobile marketplace is more
competitive and changing rapidly._ "

Not anymore. We'll probably get 4G fairly soon just because 3G capacity is
already getting taxed but going forward wireless providers can simply gimp
traffic to save money on infrastructure improvements. What incentive is there
to push forward on 5G when you can just go tell the network engineers to
adjust a few variables and save you billions of dollars? Of course if Google
or some other gigantic company wants to pay to have that variable turned down
less aggressively that seems to be fair game. I can't believe how
naive/dishonest Google is being about this.

------
anigbrowl
Do not want.

To my mind this does not address the issues honestly. The basic issue: Laying
cable is expensive, but the marginal cost of fiber over bandwidth can be
driven down in a variety of ways, and we have abundant fiber and rapid
progress in photonics improving it at least as fast as Moore's law.

Wireless spectrum, by contrast, is horrifically expensive. These two companies
own a lot of both, and would like to trade the uncertainty of the auction
model for a set of agreed industrial targets.

Some parts are a joke, like the FCC having the authority to fine companies up
to $2m after investigating bandwidth abuses on a case-by-case basis. Verizon
has annual revenues of about $27 billion; a $2m cap is about as imposing as a
nerf gun.

------
pierrefar
There is also a live blog: [http://searchengineland.com/live-blogging-the-
google-verizon...](http://searchengineland.com/live-blogging-the-google-
verizon-net-neutrality-press-conference-48385)

------
macrael
I'm still not entirely clear about the implications of this. Does this mean
that Verizon can prioritize V-Cast over "Internet" when sending data to their
phones? That seems like a big win for Verizon. They've always promoted their
psudo-internet.

Does V-Cast ship on Droids?

------
will_critchlow
Why do we anticipate a market failure with net neutrality? If one broadband
company throttles services in a way we don't like isn't there a market for one
that doesn't?

In other words why won't a competitor come along and offer a neutral service
if some providers start throttling?

I must be missing something in the argument, broadband companies don't have
monopolies do they?

~~~
nanairo
If I remember my Economics studies your argument applies to a free market. But
broadband companies have a very large initial capital investment which raises
the bar for entrants. For wireless you also have a limited number of frequency
licenses that limit supply.

And when supply is very limited, and you know that it will be very very hard
for anyone else to enter the market, then you oligopolies can appear.

That said, I don't know the USA market enough to say if they currently have a
monopoly or not, or if they are colluding or not.

~~~
will_critchlow
Yeah. You're right. On reflection I think there is a problem much like
termination in mobile phone markets where the only way to reach a subscriber
of a particular company is via their network...

I think my original comment was just wrong....

Carry on!

------
gojomo
What if I wanted to offer the following broadband service _for free_ :

• 512Kbps to anywhere

• 10Mbps+ to select sites like ESPN, YouTube, and others who agree to
subsidize the service costs in proportion to use

Why should this be illegal, as long as everything's disclosed up front?

~~~
orangecat
The problem isn't you offering that service, it's Verizon offering that
service and being the only game in town. If we had real competition, network
neutrality would be a non-issue because the market would punish violators. But
we don't.

~~~
gojomo
Then why not use antitrust and other policies to create actual competition
where it's missing? As the 'backdoor' meetings of Google and Verizon hosted by
the FCC show, federal rulemaking just cements the power of incumbents who can
send planeloads of lawyers and lobbyists to DC.

If lack of competition is the problem, _address that_ , don't try to simulate
competition via slow, often braindead, eventually-twisted-against-upstarts
regulation.

------
codemechanic
How net neutrality deals with customers who run their personal server at home.
My view is that they should also get equal preference as public online service
providers. At least they are paying the money for the bandwidth used.

Most of the explanations i see in the internet about net neutrality deals with
only content downloaded or streamed from public online services. I think it is
ironic.

------
Ardit20
Non-Discrimination Requirement : 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.Prioritization of Internet
traffic would be presumed inconsistent with the non-discrimination standard,
but the presumption could be rebutted.

Network Management : Broadband Internet access service providers are permitted
to engage in reasonable network management. Reasonable network management
includes any technically sound practice: to reduce or mitigate the effects of
congestion on its network; to ensure network security or integrity; to address
traffic that is unwanted by or harmful to users, the provider’s network, or
the Internet; to ensure service quality to a subscriber; to provide services
or capabilities consistent with a consumer’s choices; that is consistent with
the technical requirements, standards, or best practices adopted by an
independent, widely-recognized Internet community governance initiative or
standard-setting organization; to prioritize general classes or types of
Internet traffic, based on latency; or otherwise to manage the daily operation
of its network.

Additional Online Services : 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 publish an annual report
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.

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. Parties would
be encouraged to use non-governmental dispute resolution processes established
by independent, widely-recognized Internet community governance initiatives,
and the FCC would be directed to give appropriate deference to decisions or
advisory opinions of such groups. The FCC could grant injunctive relief for
violations of the consumer protection and non-discrimination provisions. The
FCC could impose a forfeiture of up to $2,000,000 for knowing violations of
the consumer-protection or non-discrimination provisions. The proposed
framework would not affect rights or obligations under existing Federal or
State laws that generally apply to businesses, and would not create any new
private right of action.

All of the above is the most evil thing I have heard being said about the
internet!

~~~
tkahn6
_All of the above is the most evil thing I have heard being said about the
internet!_

Uh, why?

~~~
Ardit20
Because it smacks of second class citizens all over it.

~~~
moultano
How so?

~~~
Ardit20
Well to just provide one example, Verizon would only have to pay $2,000,000 if
they knowingly violate the statue. No criminal sanctions. They can thereafter
continue to violate it and just pay another two million. It is a bit of a
business deal. If you can get in more money then out, then you are good. The
FCC, or anyone else, has no other authority.

Why such a low figure, we are dealing with massive corporations who would
notice 2 millions as much as I would notice 2 dollars.

The general public, that is people like me and you, would need to depend on
the FCC, and have no rights, which is not quite understandable. Why should I
not be able to sue them for discriminating against me? Because of course
Verizon is a party to the "law proposal".

Besides, there are exceptions clearly. The FCC would need to enlarge very much
if they are to deal with all the complains and have the time to analyse them
and follow them through and in the end only be able to impose a miniscule
fine.

Not to mention that the providers would have the authority to outright
prioritise internet traffic provided they go through some hoops and any lawyer
would know just how difficult that is.

~~~
moultano
>Well to just provide one example, Verizon would only have to pay $2,000,000
if they knowingly violate the statue. No criminal sanctions. They can
thereafter continue to violate it and just pay another two million. It is a
bit of a business deal. If you can get in more money then out, then you are
good. The FCC, or anyone else, has no other authority.

I don't know enough law to understand the granularity of this. Is it 2M per
infringement? Could the potentially be shelling out 2M per customer? It seems
like this is what would determine whether it's a high cap or a low cap.

