August 6, 2010 1:02 PM
- Text
Google and Verizon: How the Smartphone Killed Net Neutrality
(MoneyWatch)
No one should be surprised by the New York Times report that Google (GOOG) and Verizon (VZ) have partnered to speed certain web traffic for a fee, violating the principle of Net Neutrality that all data be treated equally.
Yes, Google has historically been a vocal advocate for net neutrality. But the booming business in smartphones and tablets will overwhelm any resistance companies like Google had to a tiered system, if not completely, at least in the mobile internet market.
As Wired points out, both Google and Verizon responded to the NYT story with denials. But the language of their denials carefully skirted the substance of what the NYT reported. Google and Verizon denied that they had arranged a specific business deal to speed traffic for a fee. But the NYT story simply stated that Google had agreed not to oppose Verizon if it decided to institute this kind of pay to play scheme.
You don't have to dig too deep to find evidence that Google was already coming around to Verizon's position on this issue. Back in March their CEOs, Eric Schmidt and Ivan Seidenberg, co-authored an editorial in the Wall Street Journal arguing that minimal government involvement would be best for the future of broadband.
The pair were more direct in a joint statement of principles on the open internet which they submitted to the FCC back in January. As in their WSJ op-ed, the statement praised the broad strokes of the FCC's plans. But they made it clear that, "Network operators must have flexibility to manage their networks to deal with a range of network-impacting issues, including traffic congestion."
CNET made things explicit yesterday. Ina Fried quoted Google CEO Eric Schmidt as saying, "We're trying to find solutions that bridge between sort of the 'hard-core Net neutrality or else' view and the historic telecom view of no such agreement."
Whatever compromise the pair has reached, it doesn't sit well with the FCC, which abruptly ended negotiations it was having with industry players on an overarching framework for broadband. It remains to be seen if the FCC chairman Julius Genachowski will deploy his nuclear option and attempt to reclassify broadband service under the Communications Act.
No one should be surprised by the New York Times report that Google (GOOG) and Verizon (VZ) have partnered to speed certain web traffic for a fee, violating the principle of Net Neutrality that all data be treated equally.Yes, Google has historically been a vocal advocate for net neutrality. But the booming business in smartphones and tablets will overwhelm any resistance companies like Google had to a tiered system, if not completely, at least in the mobile internet market.
As Wired points out, both Google and Verizon responded to the NYT story with denials. But the language of their denials carefully skirted the substance of what the NYT reported. Google and Verizon denied that they had arranged a specific business deal to speed traffic for a fee. But the NYT story simply stated that Google had agreed not to oppose Verizon if it decided to institute this kind of pay to play scheme.
You don't have to dig too deep to find evidence that Google was already coming around to Verizon's position on this issue. Back in March their CEOs, Eric Schmidt and Ivan Seidenberg, co-authored an editorial in the Wall Street Journal arguing that minimal government involvement would be best for the future of broadband.
The pair were more direct in a joint statement of principles on the open internet which they submitted to the FCC back in January. As in their WSJ op-ed, the statement praised the broad strokes of the FCC's plans. But they made it clear that, "Network operators must have flexibility to manage their networks to deal with a range of network-impacting issues, including traffic congestion."
CNET made things explicit yesterday. Ina Fried quoted Google CEO Eric Schmidt as saying, "We're trying to find solutions that bridge between sort of the 'hard-core Net neutrality or else' view and the historic telecom view of no such agreement."
Whatever compromise the pair has reached, it doesn't sit well with the FCC, which abruptly ended negotiations it was having with industry players on an overarching framework for broadband. It remains to be seen if the FCC chairman Julius Genachowski will deploy his nuclear option and attempt to reclassify broadband service under the Communications Act.
Latest Now in MoneyWatch
- Big banks, gov't officials strike $25B deal
- LinkedIn swings back to profit
- LinkedIn doubles revenue, beats growth estimates
- Kodak to stop making digital cameras, frames
- Market cap, schmarket cap, Apple still gets no respect
- Philip Morris Int'l income up nearly 8 percent
- Survey: Small biz plans big hires in 2012
- Freddie Mac: Mortgages inch higher but stay low
- Will the European debt crisis sink Obama's re-election?
- Banks in $25B deal to settle foreclosure abuses
- Joe Coffee: Scaling up without selling your soul
- Greek agreement accomplishes nothing
- 401K plans: New rules make costs clearer
- Are women leaders selling themselves short?
- Ask the Experts: New 401(k) rules
- Mortgage lenders strike a deal
- $25B foreclosure-abuse settlement reached
Latest CBS News Headlines
on Facebook
on CBS News
- Guilty plea anticipated in NY baby kidnap case
- Romney "glitter bomb" suspect loses his job
- APNewsBreak: Judge upholds Hyperion permit in SD
- NY Fashion Week: Wearable, sellable style for fall
on Facebook
- Adele opens up about vocal cord surgery
- Tenn. father charged with murdering couple who"unfriended" daughter on Facebook
- Mo. teen gets life in prison for murder of 9-year-old girl
on CBS News






