Google and Verizon have outlined their idea for the future of regulation of networks in the US, claiming that while they are both committed to an open Internet rules for mobile and specialised content could be introduced.
Reports late last week suggested that the firms were talking about the possibility of prioritising net traffic, giving a faster service to those willing to pay. This goes against the idea of net neutrality, which sates that all online traffic should be treated equally.
The companies denied that was the intention of the talks and have now released a proposal for the future regulation of networks across the US, which could also have implications for services on this side of the pond.
Google and Verizon have outlined seven proposals to take net regulation forward. Traffic is split into three different categories: wired access, wireless access and differentiated services of specialised content or services. Under the regulations companies would not be allowed to prioritise traffic and ISPs would have to guarantee Internet access to users wanting to access legal content, devices and applications.
"In providing broadband Internet access service, a provider would be prohibited from engaging in undue discrimination against any lawful Internet content, application, or service in a manner that causes meaningful harm to competition or to users," the document added, which dispels the idea that the two companies were pushing for an end to net neutrality.
The document goes on to say that ISPs should be able to "engage in reasonable network management" to ensure the smooth running of their services.
Content from our partners
Other proposals put forward by Google and Verizon include case-by-case enforcement, meaning "the FCC would enforce the consumer protection and non-discrimination requirements through case-by-case adjudication" although the body would not be able to set the rules itself. Companies that break these rules could be fined up to $2m.
The firms also suggest a transparency rule: "Providers of broadband Internet access service would be required to disclose accurate and relevant information in plain language about the characteristics and capabilities of their offerings, their broadband network management, and other practices necessary for consumers and other users to make informed choices," the document said.
However, wireless networks would be treated differently, the firms said: "Because of the unique technical and operational characteristics of wireless networks, and the competitive and still-developing nature of wireless broadband services, only the transparency principle would apply to wireless broadband at this time."
While the two companies no doubt hope that the proposals will put the net neutrality debate to bed, reaction to the announcement has not been wholly positive.
Dan Gillmor, writing on the Salon blog, said: "I’ve been worried for years that the game was on to turn the carrier-controlled Internet into just another version of television. Maybe the carriers won’t get away with that. The right way forward is to have sufficient bandwidth that we can do pretty much anything we choose using public networks — a true broadband infrastructure where packet-switched services are the basis for all communications."
"Instead, the game is on to create a parallel Internet. It’ll still be packet-switched. But they won’t call it the Internet any more. That’s an end game we should not encourage," Gillmor concluded.
