Google-Verizon nix 'net neutrality' for wireless

Aug 09, 2010
The sign for Google headquarters in Mountain View, California is seen in 2008. Google and US telecom titan Verizon on Monday proposed a legal framework to safeguard 'net neutrality' but said the rules should not apply to wireless broadband Internet connections.

Google and US telecom titan Verizon on Monday proposed a legal framework to safeguard 'net neutrality' but said the rules should not apply to wireless broadband Internet connections.

"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," the companies said in a joint statement.

"In recognition of the still-nascent nature of the wireless broadband marketplace, under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless."

Google and laid out a detailed plan for US legislators to create laws aimed at preventing Internet service providers from violating "net neutrality" by giving some data priority over other digital information.

"The original architects of the Internet got the big things right," the companies said.

"By making the network open, they enabled the greatest exchange of ideas in history. By making the Internet scalable, they enabled explosive innovation in the infrastructure."

Recommending that wireless Internet connections be exempt from rules played into fears that is changing allegiance in the battle to stop ISPs from giving preferential treatment to those that pay.

Explore further: Digital dilemma: How will US respond to Sony hack?

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Source: Google, Verizon near net neutrality plan

Aug 05, 2010

(AP) -- 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, ...

Net neutrality rules face mounting GOP opposition

Oct 05, 2009

(AP) -- Republican opposition is mounting as federal regulators prepare to vote this month on so-called "network neutrality" rules, which would prohibit broadband providers from favoring or discriminating against certain ...

Top tech firms back open Internet in FCC letter

Oct 19, 2009

Amazon, eBay, Facebook, Google, Twitter and other leading Web and technology companies expressed support Monday for Federal Communications Commission (FCC) efforts to ensure an open Internet.

Recommended for you

Digital dilemma: How will US respond to Sony hack?

Dec 18, 2014

The detective work blaming North Korea for the Sony hacker break-in appears so far to be largely circumstantial, The Associated Press has learned. The dramatic conclusion of a Korean role is based on subtle ...

UN General Assembly OKs digital privacy resolution

Dec 18, 2014

The U.N. General Assembly has approved a resolution demanding better digital privacy protections for people around the world, another response to Edward Snowden's revelations about U.S. government spying.

Online privacy to remain thorny issue: survey

Dec 18, 2014

Online privacy will remain a thorny issue over the next decade, without a widely accepted system that balances user rights and personal data collection, a survey of experts showed Thursday.

Spain: Google News vanishes amid 'Google Tax' spat

Dec 16, 2014

Google on Tuesday followed through with a pledge to shut down Google News in Spain in reaction to a Spanish law requiring news publishers to receive payment for content even if they are willing to give it away.

User comments : 12

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

jshloram
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 09, 2010
So who does Google and Verison think they are kidding. "Do no Evil", Google. Wireless should be treated no differently than Wired! There are hugh amounts of untapped Wireless bandwidth available. We just need a good reason to push the technology.
Simonsez
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2010
So if I am reading this correctly, the "neutral" internet will not change for cable users but will become tiered only for wireless users.

If that is the case, I could care less - I use a cable modem and have no plans to live in any country or city where I would be unable to continue doing so. Essentially what they are saying is that users are paying for the convenience of not being tethered to a wall, and for using a "cleaner" infrastructure, and that in doing so preference may be given to certain traffic - in this case the traffic is with a major wireless carrier and therefore provider of that convenient infrastructure. I am fine with that.
maxcypher
2 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2010
Strangely enough, so am I. If you're streaming (possibly pirated) videos, you should pay for hogging the available bandwidth. I say this based on the idea that those not hogging will get some sort of rate break... Hmmmm, corporates actually caring about consumers -- perhaps a little naive.
trekgeek1
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2010
This isn't too bad. Wireless is significantly limited compared to wired. Yes, there is a lot of unused bandwidth, but we haven't mastered that yet. Wired can be expanded by just adding more wires since the channels are isolated. Part of having an efficient communication system is having an intelligent communication system. Treating all data equally isn't the best way to use your resources. Some data is more important in the sense that it is needed to maintain efficient operation since it may be time-dependent. Other data may be able to sustain slight delays without much effect on performance. The problem we must monitor is what is defined as "necessary" and "important".
x646d63
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 09, 2010
You people understand that "wireline" Internet is orders of magnitude more expensive to maintain than wireless.

In less than 20 years, TV, internet, telephone will be 100% wireless. Residential cabling will be completely gone.

Google knows this. Verizon knows this. Apparently you don't.
jshloram
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2010
You are absolutly correct! Remember wireless is not just WIFI, it's cellular, it's WIMAX, and all the other current and future technologies that will ultimately make copper look oh so yesterday.

You people understand that "wireline" Internet is orders of magnitude more expensive to maintain than wireless.

In less than 20 years, TV, internet, telephone will be 100% wireless. Residential cabling will be completely gone.

Google knows this. Verizon knows this. Apparently you don't.

blazingspark
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2010
You people understand that "wireline" Internet is orders of magnitude more expensive to maintain than wireless.

In less than 20 years, TV, internet, telephone will be 100% wireless. Residential cabling will be completely gone.

Google knows this. Verizon knows this. Apparently you don't.
This is partly true. Though there will still be lots of hardwired backbones. People wanting low latency, high bandwidth, reliable connections will still have cable.

A fiber to most homes will still happen I believe.
Caliban
3 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2010
You people understand that "wireline" Internet is orders of magnitude more expensive to maintain than wireless.

In less than 20 years, TV, internet, telephone will be 100% wireless. Residential cabling will be completely gone.

Google knows this. Verizon knows this. Apparently you don't.
A fiber to most homes will still happen I believe.


There is virtually no fiber to home service. Most cable bandwidth is restricted between end user and trunk, and plods.
No, what this means is arbitrary rate increase. This is nothing more than an anticompetitive moneygrab, and EVERYONE will pay more, but mostly individuals. Think prices are high now?
Awaken from your NAIVETE, my little fishes in the barrel, and contact FCC, Google, lawmakers, or see your wants and needs downgraded and upcharged, in order that we subsidize Commercial Interests on the web. And there will be absolutely zero that you can do to fix it then- just ask any Comcast customer- they can tell you all about it.
Caliban
3 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2010
And,
@Simonsez,maxcypher-
What kind of BS is that? Am I hearing "I've got mine, so f**k you!" from you two? Are you not aware that it is just that sickening, quasi-objectivist, neoCON groupthink responsible for the vast majority of the s**t we find ourselves awash in?
What will you say when it is discovered that, say, 99.9% of all cable deployed in the past 25 years is doped with the most carcinogenic substance known to man, that causes cancerous mutations after exposures of 15-20 years? Will you expect your WiFi brethren to unite with you in fiery, outraged protest -not relenting until your grievances are redressed? This isn't about arbitrary control of the inTRAnet, it's about arbitrary control of the inTERnet, which will, at some point, ALL BE WIRELESS.
Get off your asses while we've still got a chance to stop this:

http://act.boldpr...&t=1
202 456-1111= whitehouse comment line

Do it now!
ArcainOne
5 / 5 (1) Aug 10, 2010
What it comes down to is technology is advancing so rapidly no one here actually knows where the future will lead us. 40-50 years ago people believed computers would never fit on the top of a desk, now my most basic calculator out performs those, we have cell phones as big as your pinky or capable of taking high definition videos with more functinality than the original Startrek communicator we all thought was cool back in the day. Technology is a rollercoster and most of us are along for the ride, only the engineers and scientists behind new innovations can give you a decent estimate on where it is going. So I make this simple stand, Wireless should remain just as Cabled, neutral, because you truely don't know what the future will hold, and I bet Google and Verizon have a better Idea and anyone on this site.
ArcainOne
5 / 5 (1) Aug 10, 2010
sorry that last part should read, "THAN" anyone on this site...
Grallen
not rated yet Aug 16, 2010
Wow. This discussion really points to peoples lack of knowledge regarding wireless.

We are running out of usable spectrum. It's as simple as that.

http://www.wirele...ews.html

They are scrambling to reclaim frequency so that we can have as much mobile internet as possible. But unless we figure out some new undiscovered forms of non-ionizing radiation that can pass through most obstacles, there is literally only so much wireless bandwidth to go around.

Do you want to give up the ability to use mobile internet completely? Because if a wireless carrier can't legally limit the jerk using up the whole spectrum you are on (usually with bit torrent), --you are screwed--.

As for wired internet though, companies need to get off their greedy corporate asses and lay more fiber. Net neutrality should prevail wherever possible.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.