(WEB HOST INDUSTRY REVIEW) -- A report from the New York Times has suggested that a possible deal between online services provider Google (www.google.com) and broadband provider Verizon (www.verizon.com) could result in a system where content creators can pay extra for faster content delivery. Other reports, however, suggest that the negotiations are surrounding a pact to ensure "network neutrality" for Verizon's broadband services.
Net neutrality is basically the concept that Internet users, not Internet Service Providers or governments, should be in control over what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. To do otherwise, Google has argued, essentially gives those with power over Internet access the ability to discriminate against competing applications or content.
"We are united in our dismay about an agreement reportedly reached by Verizon and Google," reads a statement signed by the Free Press, the Media Access Project, the Media and Democracy Coalition, the New America Foundation's Open Technology Initiative, and The Center for Media Justice. "It is unseemly and inappropriate for two giant companies to decide the future of the Internet and how Internet will work for millions of users."
The fight between those who want unrestricted online communications and those who would rather regulation be left to the invisible hand of the free market is one that impacts billion-dollar companies, millions of users and even democracy.
The New York Times reports that content providers like Google subsidiary YouTube could pay Verizon, one of largest ISPs in the US, to ensure its content is given priority. The report also notes that this added expense could be passed onto consumers in the form of inflated Internet use charges.
UPDATE: Google has denied that it has discussed such an arrangement with Verizon. Its Twitter post on the subject reads: "@NYTimes is wrong. We've not had any convos with VZN about paying for carriage of our traffic. We remain committed to an open internet."
The sort of agreement suggested by the New York Times, however, is uncharacteristic of Google, which has been a longtime advocate of a neutral Internet. "Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online," read one of Google's statements on net neutrality.
Bloomberg has reported that two anonymous sources briefed by Google and Verizon said the secret meeting involved a compromise in which Verizon may be permitted to selectively slow Internet content delivered to mobile phones, but not to broadband.
In the Summer of 2006, Google chairman and CEO Eric Schmidt issued an open letter on net neutrality, urging individuals to take action to protect Internet freedom. “Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight,” he stated.
Known as an opponent of Internet regulation, Verizon Communications CEO Ivan Seidenberg has argued that net neutrality legislation could ruin the Internet's potential to fuel the economy, and drive societal change. Seidenberg and his supports have also argued that prioritizing online traffic helps broadband speeds remain fast.
Dave Schaeffer, CEO of pure-play ISP Cogent (www.cogentco.com), notes that ISPs should welcome net neutrality because Internet services are more valuable to consumers when they can more fully utilize the network - even displacing traditional, high-margin services such as telephone and cable TV. “If service providers offer a bundled service where they are providing an application along with network functions, they are internally conflicted and will always look to protect their legacy revenue streams from those bonded services, such as cable TV or telephony services,” he said in an interview with the WHIR.
