Google and Verizon make net neutrality pitch

Google and Verizon have reaffirmed their support for the Federal Communications Commission

Google and Verizon are pitching a framework for a US law that would seek to reaffirm net neutrality.

The two companies said that the Legislative Framework Proposal (PDF) will lay the groundwork for a system that would allow internet service providers (ISPs) to manage their networks and ensure security and performance while still requiring non-discrimination rules.

The non-discrimination clause would force ISPs to provide equal access to all legal internet traffic, and offer information to consumers about the practices used to manage network traffic.

However, wireless networks would see significantly fewer restrictions under the proposals, and the transparency laws will apply only to wireless broadband networks.

"We both recognise that wireless broadband is different from the traditional wireline world, in part because the mobile marketplace is more competitive and changing rapidly," said Alan Davidson, director of public policy at Google, and Tom Tauke, vice president of public affairs, policy and communications at Verizon, in a blog post.

"In recognition of the still nascent nature of the wireless broadband marketplace, under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency requirement."

The companies also reiterated their support for the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which has been pressing for net neutrality protections to be enacted.

Not all net neutrality advocates lined up in support of the plan, however. User advocacy group Public Knowledge slammed it as a corporate pact and an agreement to exclude mobile broadband from net neutrality protection.

"The agreement between Verizon and Google about how to manage internet traffic is nothing more than a private agreement between two corporate behemoths, and should not be a template or basis for either congressional or FCC action," the organisation told V3.co.uk.

"It is unenforceable, and does almost nothing to preserve an open internet. Most critically, it sacrifices the future of the mobile wireless internet as this platform becomes more central to the lives of all Americans."