Super Mod/News Team
Staff member
Premium Member
Jan 27, 2010
Reaction score
Lafayette Hill, Pa
Current Phone Model
HTC One M8
Google and Verizon announcing something policy-related at 1:30PM ET -- we're liveblogging right here

12:50PM A: In all fairness, there could be other services differentiated from the public internet that could be perceived as the public internet that people could pay for. Google: We're not going to do any of those things. We like the public internet.

12:49PM Washington Post: I'm confused by what you mean by managed services? Does this mean that Google can buy up capacity on your network to have faster YouTube? A: I think the answer is no, but let's make sure we explain this. Under the principles we're talking about here, there's no prioritization of traffic coming from Google period. That was a key principle -- no paid prioritization.

12:47PM Back to Eric for Q/A time!

12:46PM "We will be post these principles on our website and follow them as corporate policy thereafter."

12:46PM "Google is what consumers expect when they think of a robust and vibrant internet, and we want to follow suit."

12:46PM "Why now, why Google? As Eric stated in his earlier comment, there's been so much discussion of this issue, that we feel this debate has been hijacked by issues that's not reflective of what the company's doing. We support the FCC, we built a fiber network, we built a wireless network, we purchased spectrum and agreed to open-access."

12:45PM "The last element of our proposal is support of reform of the Federal Universal Service Fund so that it supports deploying broadband."

12:44PM "The sixth element would be recognizing that wireless is a different world than the wireline world -- wireless has different technologies, different interplay between different devices and the network. We're worried that too many rules will hamper our ability to optimize our network, but a transparency requirement would be a very good thing."

12:42PM Ivan's turn! "I have three additional elements to cover.. building on the four things Eric said, the fifth on is that we'd like to make sure the broadband platform in our country becomes strong."

12:41PM "Three, we would clarify the FCC's authority in the space... and the FCC would have the ability to impose a $2m fine on bad actors."

12:41PM "Two, we would have enforceable transparency provisions that apply to both wireline and wireless broadband, and consumers would know what is happening with their service."

12:40PM "The highlights of the proposal are few -- we believe very strongly that the wireline broadband proposal should be enforceable... there should be no discrimination or blocking of internet traffic, and all blocking is presumed to violate the rules."

12:39PM "Now, you've read a lot of a press about today, almost all of which has been completely wrong -- please report what we actually announce today, and now what you've read in the past." Saucy!

12:38PM "An open internet importantly allows the next Google to be created... two people in a garage need an open interent."

12:38PM "We think this is the time to release a more detailed joint policy proposal, and we think this will move the debate forward."

12:37PM "Last October we expressed our common ground, and last January we made a filing. We want to set aside the debate and recognize that we need each other. We need network, and they need the valuable content we provide."

12:37PM Eric Schmidt is on the line! "Thank you all for being on the call -- I'm very happy to be here with Ivan. We've also got our public policy VPs on the call. We've been talking about the state of the internet, and whether there's a common ground."

12:36PM Okay, here we go -- still no blog updates though.

12:33PM Still no update on Google's policy blog, and Verizon's appears to be down. Way to prioritize that network traffic, guys.

12:31PM Sounds like we're running a little late -- they're "gathering additional participants." Given the last-minute nature of this entire thing, we can't say we're too surprised.

12:28PM Okay, we're on the call a few minutes early here -- both Google and Verizon have said a "preview" of the announcement will be posted on their respective public policy blogs at 1:25, but we're not seeing anything yet.

It was super short notice, but Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Verizon Communications CEO Ivan Seidenberg are holding a joint press call at 1:30PM EST to announce what we can only surmise is something related to those recent rumors of a net-neutrality-related "deal" -- we'll be liveblogging as fast as we can, so keep it locked right here.

Google and Verizon announcing something policy-related at 1:30PM ET -- we're liveblogging right here -- Engadget
And this is what happened..

Google and Verizon publish joint policy proposal for 'an open internet'

By Darren Murph posted Aug 9th 2010 at 1:53PM
Breaking News

5diggsdigg Back in October of last year, Google and Verizon came together in order to provide an intense amount of corporate support for the FCC's then-fledgling net neutrality push. Today, said push has turned into quite the monster, with a recent court ruling asserting that the FCC doesn't actually have the authority to impose net neutrality. Since then, a cadre of telecommunications firms have banded together in one form or another to attempt a compromise (and slyly get what each of them really want), and today the Big G and Big Red have taken the stage together in order to publicize a well-thought out policy proposal for "an open internet." Both firms seem to agree that web users "should choose what content, applications, or devices they use," and they both want "enforceable prohibition against discriminatory practices" -- and yeah, that definitely includes prioritization and blocking of internet traffic, including paid prioritization. In an odd twist, what seems to be happening here is that both Google and Verizon are actually in favor of more government oversight on the internet, but they want that oversight to be beneficial to consumers. In other words, more regulations from the feds to enforce fewer regulations imposed on you from your ISP. Get all that?

Where things really get interesting is when they touch on the wireless angle; essentially, they're admitting that the very proposals they are putting forth for wireline shouldn't apply to wireless just yet (aside from the whole "transparency" thing). It seems that the prevailing logic is that there's simply not enough spectrum for this idyllic "play fair" scenario to truly work, so fewer restrictions would be necessary for the wireless internet space to blossom as the wireless side already has. Moreover, we get the impression that these guys feel the wireless space as a whole is simply too competitive right now to withstand any red tape.


Google Public Policy Blog
via engadget