Tech Search

In a blog post titled "Facts About Our Net Neutrality Policy Proposal," Google's senior media and telecom counsel, Rick Whitt, attempted to debunk five "myths" they said were being swirled around since the firm announced its legislative blueprint with Verizon on so-called net neutrality rules. The first, that Google "sold out" on net neutrality:

"We're not saying this solution is perfect, but we believe that a proposal that locks in key enforceable protections for consumers is preferable to no protection at all," said Whitt, one of the most vocal proponents in recent years of broad net neutrality rules at the FCC.

Public interest groups, meanwhile, have slammed the proposal by Google and Verizon, saying the deal could allow carriers to give preference to applications and block others on wireless networks. And they said a provision that allows for specialized services by network carriers could result in the wealthiest Web firms buying up capacity on networks. That would leave consumers with an Internet similar to the cable television model of bundled channels, they said.

But Whitt said recent events have undermined the FCC's ability to carry out rules that prevent network carriers from blocking or slowing traffic. The FCC's loss to Comcast in a federal appeals court undercut the agency's authority as a broadband industry watchdog.

He also alluded to increased political pressure against those rules and the company's sense of urgency to push forward on a narrow law, even if that meant walking back on goals for rules to apply to wireless networks. When FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski announced his policy proposal for net neutrality last September, he received more than six dozen letters from Democratic lawmakers rebuking him for the move, which they said was over-reaching.

"But given political realities, this particular issue has been intractable in Washington for several years now," Whitt wrote. "At this time there are no enforceable protections ¿ at the Federal Communications Commission or anywhere else ¿ against even the worst forms of carrier discrimination against Internet traffic."

Contrary to news reports, like from Post Tech, Whitt said the agreement was not about Android and the Google's business ties to Verizon Wireless. And he said the companies had signaled closer agreement on wireless issues over recent months and that the firm felt it was okay to let go of rules for mobile networks because that industry was competitive.

"This is a policy proposal ¿ not a business deal," Whitt said. "Of course, Google has a close business relationship with Verizon, but ultimately this proposal has nothing to do with Android."

Public interest group Free Press disputed Whitt's assertion that wireless networks are competitive. And the group, which sent a letter with two dozen other consumer and public interest groups to the FCC on Thursday protesting the plan, said Whitt was wrong in saying the agency would be more empowered with the framework. Instead, Free Press and others say the plan seeks to undermine the agency's ability to make policy and only push forth fines when complaints are brought against companies.

"Google's latest response is yet another layer of lipstick on the pig," said Free Press' director of policy Derek Turner. "While we agree the perfect should not be the enemy of the good, the terrible should be, and their deal with Verizon is simply terrible for the future of the open Internet.