The debate over the struggle to keep the Net open continues as Google eyes Web traffic deal with Verizon.
Today the New York Times came in strongly against the search engine provider accusing both Google and Verizon are on the verge of signing an agreement for speedier content deliver.
The agreement would let Verizon accelerate content delivery to consumers provided that online publishers pay for it.
By publishers, we are talking of services like YouTube, who would get priority over others when it comes to content delivery over the Verizon Network. A network, by the way, that is amongst one of the top Internet service providers in the United States. The payment will be made by the owner of the content, Google in this case.
The flip side? Wave goodbye to net neutrality.
Here are some reasons why I think this could prove harmful for the rest of us:
- Consumers will get charged extra 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 Internet Service Providers (ISPs), which I know some wouldn’t mind that much!
In addition, quite a few Verizon phones run on Google’s Android mobile operating system, which further gives credence to speculations that Google might try to seek preferred treatment from Verizon.
In response, Verizon stated this on its blog:
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.
While Google response on the Guardian was:
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.
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.
Is Google finally evil?
