Google and Verizon propose ‘Net Neutrality’ rules, but exempt wireless

invisibleSHIELD case for iPad“Google and Verizon this afternoon outlined their widely rumored proposal for net neutrality guidelines,” Electronista reports.

Advertisement: Protect your iPad with the invisibleSHIELD.

“As expected, the terms would focus on wired controls but would sacrifice fairness in wireless to reach the goal,” Electronista reports. “The FCC would be the only official body and would have authority to ban both blocking or throttling legal traffic as well as limit prioritization of certain content, but only on wired networks. Both wired and wireless networks would have a requirement for transparency, which would require any carrier to clearly disclose how it shapes traffic and other limits on the network. Wired services could have special services such as IPTV, but these would have to be clearly separated from general Internet access so they aren’t used as forms of cheating the neutrality rules, the two companies said.”

Electronista reports, “Google’s motivations behind the deal have already been called into question. The search firm is heavily dependent on Verizon for Android phone sales and would stand to lose significant market share and mobile ad revenue if its carrier partner backed away.

Read more in the full article here.

Read “A joint policy proposal for an open Internet” by Alan Davidson, Google director of public policy and Tom Tauke, Verizon executive vice president of public affairs, policy, and communications here.


  1. This is funny. Google and Verizon think they are so clever with a BS compromise like this. Everyone knows that “over the air” internet traffic is the sweet spot. In the short future the biggest chunk of online advertising will be in the mobile market. No one will care about land lines for internet.

  2. Despicable. Google used to be like Apple in that they wanted to take on the world to make it a better place. Now they’ve got dollar signs in their eyes and have so much power that they’ve lost their grounding. Not to sound dramatic, but they’re the next evil empire. Microsoft was nothing compared to what Google will be.

  3. So, Google is staking its future on the wireless space? Interesting.

    In other words, Google could charge the cable companies for access to Google Search, YouTube, and its cloud services, but they would remain free to wireless partners like Verizon.

  4. @samiam

    Actually, OTA wireless isn’t the sweet spot, no more than OTA television broadcast is a premium.

    The sweet spot is FiOS, for which there are three tiers of service, including up to 50 Mbit/s down and 20 Mbit/s upload. The future is fiber optics, not wireless.

    Google is creating a red herring by embracing the wireless spectrum just to divert the FCCs attention away from the machinations in the wired space.

  5. Myriad public services will be available from the wall-garden of the wireless internet, however all of the content will be out of copyright, or contain zero DRM.

    In other words, a generic internet saturated with paid advertising to offset the cost. Think of the days of AOL, before they opened it up to third-party browsers. It was an internet that was brought in-house solely for its consumers.

  6. Why not just leave the internet be! Stop regulating crap. Let the parents have the discipline to enable parental controls and monitor what THEY want their children to watch! This whole FCC thing is stupid since they do nothing but block crap. LEAVE MY TECHNOLOGY ALONE!

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.