Communication Solutions

The nation’s largest over-the-top service provider and one of the biggest telephone companies have put aside their differences to collaborate on a policy framework on net neutrality. But although Google and Verizon (News - Alert) have come to terms on the matter, the powers that be in Washington, D.C., have not.

Four Democratic politicians reportedly have said that the proposal put out by the pair doesn’t give the federal government enough power over the Internet and related wireless services.

Rep. Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts wrote a letter expressing that sentiment. The letter also was signed by Anna Eshoo of California, Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania, and Jay Inslee of Washington state.

Markey, in the letter suggests that curbing FCC (News - Alert) control over wireless "could widen the digital divide by establishing a substandard, less open experience for traditionally underserved regions and demographic groups that may more often need to access or choose to access the Internet on a mobile device."

Likely fearing a government heavy hand in Internet regulation, Google (News - Alert) and Verizon earlier this month jointly issued their suggestions on how net neutrality might best be addressed, while still encouraging network investment.

To allow that to happen, the companies said that regulators and other players must ensure that consumers have access to all legal content on the Internet, and can use what applications, services, and devices they choose.

“This means that for the first time, wireline broadband providers would not be able to discriminate against or prioritize lawful Internet content, applications or services in a way that causes harm to users or competition,” Google and Verizon said.

They also suggested that rules be created to prohibit discriminatory practices. However, the pair said the FCC should enforce openness only as complaints arise, on a case-by-case basis. Those found in violation of the proposed new rules could face a penalty of up to $2 million, according to the framework proffered by Google and Verizon.

“Importantly, this new non-discrimination principle includes a presumption against prioritization of Internet traffic – including paid prioritization,” the pair said.

However, Google and Verizon added “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.”

Examples of this kind of thing, said Google and Verizon, might include health care monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services, or new entertainment and gaming options.

The 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.

Other framework tenets include exempting wireline networks and services from all of the above (because Google and Verizon see wireless as a different beast), except for the suggestion calling for the creation of “transparency rules” for wireline and wireless services requiring providers of said offerings to provide clear information about their services’ capabilities, and the support for USF reform in an effort to bring broadband to areas where it is not now available.

While it was noteworthy that these two leading companies, which were once on opposite sides of the net neutrality debate, came together with these specific suggestions, their joint framework once again whipped up strong feelings and spirited debate on a variety of fronts.