Google and Verizon Reach Net Neutrality Agreement

In a move intended to break the current logjam over network neutrality discussions, Google and Verizon have reached their own agreement on network neutrality principles, and the compromise offers something for most key stakeholders.


The agreement enshrines "best effort" access as the mandatory form of service consumers are sold. Internet access providers could not apply their own packet priorities to legal traffic. You might assume this precludes creation of new quality-assured applications. The agreement, though, seems to preserve this option, but makes it an option only application providers can supply.


Application providers, on the other hand, could create quality-assured versions of their applications, while ISPs cannot. 


The agreement also exempts wireless networks from any of the rules, and allows ISPs to create new managed services (sort of like cable TV or satellite TV) that are not limited to best effort features. 


The companies agree that there should be a new, enforceable prohibition against discriminatory practices. 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.

In addition to not blocking or degrading of Internet content and applications, wireline broadband providers also could not favor particular Internet traffic over other traffic. That is a key provision. It means an ISP cannot favor its own video services over rival video services, for example.

The proposal, however, also 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. Such "managed services" would not be traditional "Internet access" or "broadband access" services, but rather new and separate services.

The Google-Verizon proposal also includes safeguards to ensure that such new 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.

Wireless broadband is different from the traditional wireline world, so the proposal refrains from applying new rules to wireless networks and services.

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.

Both firms agree also about enforceable transparency rules, for both wireline and wireless services. Broadband providers would be required to give consumers clear, understandable information about the services they offer and their capabilities.

The two firms also call for new ability by the FCC to enforce these openness policies on a case-by-case basis, using a complaint-driven process. The FCC could move swiftly to stop a practice that violates these safeguards, and it could impose a penalty of up to $2 million on bad actors.

Both firms support reform of the Federal Universal Service Fund, so that it is focused on deploying broadband in areas where it is not now available.

Both companies say they favor turning the Federal Communications Commission's "Internet Freedoms" principles into enforceable rules. Those principles, already in place, stipulate that consumers have access to all legal content on the Internet, and can use what applications, services, and devices they choose.

Both firms hope the agreement can serve as the framework for the FCC's broader network neutrality rules.