Broadband and Google and Verizon

Today Google and Verizon made a public announcement regarding their conversations.

They start by laying out two principles:

1. Users should choose what content, applications, or devices they use, since openness has been central to the explosive innovation that has made the Internet a transformative medium.

2. America must continue to encourage both investment and innovation to support the underlying broadband infrastructure; it is imperative for our global competitiveness.

These are exceptionally clear and appropriate. The user should be allowed choice in content and equipment. This is NOT what the cable companies allow. This could never have been reached with say Comcast. Second, innovation is critical and Government intervention is the death call for innovation. Thus with innovation as a core principle this means that the FCC should just keep itself out of this.

They then present seven key principles:

First, both companies have long been proponents of the FCC’s current wireline broadband openness principles, which ensure that consumers have access to all legal content on the Internet, and can use what applications, services, and devices they choose. The enforceability of those principles was called into serious question by the recent Comcast court decision. Our proposal would now make those principles fully enforceable at the FCC.

Just what this means is in question. Do they want the FCC to memorialize this and if so it violates the second of the above two.

Second, we agree that in addition to these existing principles there should be a new, enforceable prohibition against discriminatory practices. This means that for the first time, wireline broadband providers would not be able to discriminate against or prioritize lawful Internet content, applications or services in a way that causes harm to users or competition.

This is laudable. It is a broad statement including selectively managing traffic.

Third, it’s important that the consumer be fully informed about their Internet experiences. Our proposal would create enforceable transparency rules, for both wireline and wireless services. Broadband providers would be required to give consumers clear, understandable information about the services they offer and their capabilities.

One assumes that pricing and usage would be clearly established. It is a shame that the same is not the case for wireless. This is a nice principle but its use in practice is difficult.

Fourth, because of the confusion about the FCC’s authority following the Comcast court decision, our proposal spells out the FCC’s role and authority in the broadband space. ... Specifically, the FCC would enforce these openness policies on a case-by-case basis, using a complaint-driven process.

This means that the FCC becomes the Tort Court, bring it a specific case and it will remedy it according to some rules. The problem here will be the typical regulatory delay. We will always be dealing with yesterday's problems. Phone companies lived in that world, the Internet never did.

Fifth, we want the broadband infrastructure to be a platform for innovation. Therefore, our proposal would allow broadband providers to offer additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services (such as Verizon's FIOS TV) offered today.

This is the Trojan horse for the entry into open video content. Comcast and thew others control that and make it costly. Will Verizon and Google be able to disintermediate this model.

Sixth, we both recognize that wireless broadband is different from the traditional wireline world, in part because the mobile marketplace is more competitive and changing rapidly.

This is the recognition that we have not yet reached low cost wireless bandwidth. Reasonable.

Seventh, and finally, we strongly believe that it is in the national interest for all Americans to have broadband access to the Internet. Therefore, we support reform of the Federal Universal Service Fund, so that it is focused on deploying broadband in areas where it is not now available.

This means they want their hands to get the money which the ILECs are collecting and giving out to others.

It should be interesting to see how Comcast responds!