The debate over the struggle to keep the net open continues as Google continues to bear the brunt of accusations. The New York Times’ article came in strongly on the search engine provider accusing that both Google and Verizon are on the verge to sign an agreement for speedier content deliver. The agreement would let Verizon fasten content delivery to consumers provided that online publishers paid for the same.
By publishers, we are talking about services like YouTube, would get priority when it comes to delivery over the Verizon Network, which is amongst the top Internet service providers in the United States. The payment will be made via the owner, Google in this case. The flip side? Wave goodbye to net neutrality. The reasons why this could prove harmful are:
Consumers will be charged higher for faster content delivery.
Preference to one content over another on the basis of one being free and the other being paid for.
It would mean an end to the FCC control over the Internet Service Providers.
The concerns by all means are valid and this isn’t something new. Similar issues were spotted back in 2008, in a different scenario when Google tries to finalize a deal with Yahoo and Microsoft did try and succeed to win a deal in its favor. The reason why there was opposition to the Google/Yahoo deal was simple, that it would solidify Google’s lead in the search market. But that’s an old tale, but with links to this latest development. At present, quite a lot of Verizon phones run on the Android operating system, which further gives air to speculations that Google might try and have Verizon give reference to content. But its contrary to this, primarily because the agreement would also put a condition that Google will not interfere with how Verizon manages content over its network.
The concerns have got both Verizon and Google respond to the problems pointed out in the article. Verizon on its blog stated:
The NYT article regarding conversations between Google and Verizon is mistaken. It fundamentally misunderstands our purpose. As we said in our earlier FCC filing, our goal is an Internet policy framework that ensures openness and accountability, and incorporates specific FCC authority, while maintaining investment and innovation. To suggest this is a business arrangement between our companies is entirely incorrect.
And Google stating on the Guardian:
The New York Times is quite simply wrong. We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google traffic. We remain as committed as we always have been to an open internet.
If this is so what exactly is the deal about then? They aren’t just signing an agreement to have Verizon lift ban on a Google service or create data centers, etc. The deal in my opinion is about winning extra bandwidth to promote better utilization of speed and improved content delivery. Improved speed and higher bandwidth would bolt users with higher service rate and ensure the internet is monopolized. I might be wrong, or subjecting Google and Verizon to blunt criticism, but that’s all I can make out of this. Does either one of these have an answer?
Jean-Baptiste Su is the technology columnist for L’Expansion, the leading business publication in France. He’s also the co-founder and editor of TechPulse 360, a blog at the crossroads of business and technology, exploring the innovation and companies defining the high-tech and clean-tech industries.
Jean-Baptiste started his journalistic career 18 years ago at IDG in France, first as reporter at InfoPC (PC World) and then senior editor at Le Monde Informatique (ComputerWorld). He later joined Decision Informatique, part of Groupe Tests (01 Informatique, 01net.com…) as senior editor, before heading to France’s financial daily newspaper La Tribune as its local Silicon Valley correspondent.
