Google Defends its New Net Neutrality Stance

| News

Google’s proposed Internet neutrality rules, co-developed with Verizon, has generally been received negatively, so now the Internet search giant has gone on the defensive. The company went so far as to publish a Web page defending its position and called several of the comments against the proposal myths.

The proposal Google and Verizon crafted outside of the FCC’s negotiations with service providers builds a framework where data traveling over wired Internet connections moves with few restrictions, but data on wireless connections can be throttled and controlled however the carrier pleases. In other words, the proposal appears to offer net neutrality in name only.

Google, however, claims that isn’t the case. “In our proposal, we agreed that the best first step is for wireless providers to be fully transparent with users about how network traffic is managed to avoid congestion, or prioritized for certain applications and content,” Google’s Telecom and Media Counsel, Richard Whitt said.

The company also claims the proposal won’t create a scenario where providers cut out services that compete with their offerings, or slow down traffic that doesn’t benefit them.

“Another aspect of the joint proposal would allow broadband providers to offer certain specialized services to customers, services which are not part of the Internet,” Mr. Whitt said. “So, for example, broadband providers could offer a special gaming channel, or a more secure banking service, or a home health monitoring capability — so long as such offerings are separate and apart from the public Internet.”

According to the Google and Verizon guidelines, carriers would need to offer services that are “distinguishable in purpose and scope” from regular Internet access before throttling back other content in favor of their own. Companies would also have to offer transparency so users would know what content is being favored and what is being held back or slowed down.

Google also sees the proposal as a step forward for an open and free Internet, not a hinderance. The company noted that the proposal would protect wired Internet connections from prioritized data, and would block discriminating against wired Internet traffic in ways that could harm users or competition. It doesn’t, however, prevent companies from slowing some Internet traffic, nor does it protect wireless Internet connections from data discrimination.

Google also claims it isn’t “selling out.” “Given political realities, [net neutrality] has been intractable in Washington for several years now. At this time there are no enforceable protections.” Mr. Whitt said. “With that in mind, we decided to partner with a major broadband provider on the best policy solution we could devise together.”



The company also claims the proposal won?t create a scenario where providers cut out services that compete with their offerings, or slow down traffic that doesn?t benefit them.

That’s WHY they want this ability.


Google is too powerful. We need to dismantle it.

Lil Oggin

Publicly traded companies will always hold shareholder interests above that of the public’s. Net neutrality is not in the best interest of shareholder. Not even the public’s representatives in government will do what is in the best interest of the public.

John Dingler, artist,

I don’t care what Google/Verizon wants; I want this: For the privilege of their use of the internet in America—yes, they are users—, and because carriers such as Verizon would need to offer services and access that are indistinguishable in purpose and scope on the whole internet—there is only one internet, not bits and pieces—and are absolutely not allowed to throttle back anyones other content in favor of their own. This is the meaning of net neutrality in America and which we should demand, and not go before these monsters of control hat in hand mere supplicants like a slave before the slavemaster or a surf before the lord.

To use the internet for business purposes and to use and misuse the customer to extract fees from him/her, Google-style companies and carriers like Verizon and AT&T need to behave neutrally on the net in the way that I and we, not they, define it.

If they want to operate with disregard to what citizens want, then they can move their operations to Somalia or Iran and be prohibited from operating in any way in the US. I am absolutely sure that a company responsible to the people will rise up to take their place.


See how fluidly the word such as “transparency”, “free choice” and “do no evil” flow out liberally from the mouth of Google whenever they plan to do evil? They are real slick at covering their evil tracks!


Yet another one of the many reasons why I use Bing. Google sucks, and I totally agree with Hilary. They’re getting too big for their own good. Just look at all the companies they have taken over already. When it comes to Google, I feel like Big Brother is constantly watching.

So I’ve developed this tendency of staying away from EVERYTHING that Google touches.

Log in to comment (TMO, Twitter or Facebook) or Register for a TMO account