In the latest game of “back and forth with industry lobbyists,” Verizon responded to a Free Press statement strongly criticizing its assertion that the Google-Verizon proposal would protect Net Neutrality.

Verizon’s “facts” are expert efforts at misdirection – they say a lot of things, but they aren’t telling the truth about the real details of their own proposal and intentions. Painted in full, there can be no doubt that the Verizon-Google proposal would not protect the open Internet and would not promote competition, now or in the future.

Verizon assertion: Our proposal enforces a tough non-discrimination requirement and promotes and protects Internet access.

Real facts: The proposal’s nondiscrimination requirement includes multiple loopholes:
1) It only prohibits “undue” discrimination – a term never before defined.
2) It only prohibits undue discrimination “that causes meaningful harm to competition or to users.” A standard of “meaningful harm” creates a high barrier, in practice, for individual Internet users who have complaints that feel very meaningful to them.
3) The nondiscrimination rule does not apply to wireless Internet access service, even though mobile broadband has become a key component of the broadband marketplace for both speech and commerce.

Verizon assertion: It includes a presumption against all prioritization on Internet connections.

Real facts: The framework includes a presumption that prioritization of Internet traffic is “inconsistent with the non-discrimination standard.” This is not the same thing as a presumption against prioritization. With this phrasing, prioritization would still be permissible under the broad carve-out for “reasonable network management” if the network operator claims that its purpose is “to ensure service quality to a subscriber” or for any number of other open ended reasons. This is a blanket loophole for network operators to engage in any prioritization they want.

Furthermore, the presumption can be rebutted, and no standard or purposes is given for the rebuttal – though it seems unclear how or why prioritization of specific traffic would be considered non-discriminatory. This is an entirely separate loophole that would apply regardless of the purpose of the prioritization.

Verizon assertion: The non-discrimination provision and presumption against any prioritization are stronger than what the FCC could obtain through Title II reclassification.

Real facts: The loopholes and ambiguities demonstrated above undermine any such assertions. But even if this were true, then Verizon should no longer have any objections to Title II reclassification, as the company has voluntarily agreed to a supposedly stronger set of protections than the FCC could accomplish post-reclassification.

Verizon assertion: The non-discrimination provision for Internet connections is in line with the President’s priority on Net Neutrality, and it establishes specific FCC authority called for by Free Press.

Real facts: The proposed framework limits FCC authority more than it establishes it, and the loopholes in the nondiscrimination proposal render it unable to achieve any of the goals set out by the president in his support for Net Neutrality – it would not create a level playing field for competitors, and it would not protect Internet users.

Verizon assertion: The FCC is given specific authority for the first time to oversee these provisions.

Real facts: The FCC currently regulates a number of small and rural Internet service providers as Title II telecommunications service providers, and the FCC regulated all Internet service providers under the Computer Inquiries framework for many years. Although the statement is true as to providing “specific authority” related to “these provisions” (meaning, the exact provisions proposed by Google and Verizon), the FCC has held authority to apply comparable or stronger provisions in the past, and still holds such authority for many services offered today.

Verizon assertion: Our proposal protects Internet users by ensuring that potential services beyond robust Internet access (e.g. medical monitoring, smart grid and other ideas in the National Broadband Plan) are differentiated from the Internet and subject to GAO and FCC monitoring and reports to Congress.

Real facts: By eliminating FCC oversight authority from any “additional” services that may be offered, the proposal condemns Internet users to any abuses that network operators may choose to engage in, until further Congressional action can be taken. A legislative framework that “protects” users by waiting for additional legislation before correcting harm offers no protection at all. Furthermore, the concept of a service that is “distinguishable in scope and purpose” from Internet access, but can nevertheless incorporate Internet content, applications or services, creates substantial opportunities for services that undermine the functionality of the open Internet. In practice, this provision empowers network operators to create a true “private Internet” in which content and applications companies could pay for prioritized treatment, relegating the “public, open Internet” to a backwoods of residual bandwidth while large incumbent interests with resources can purchase their way into the future.

Verizon assertion: Openness is fast becoming the standard in the wireless industry, as the FCC envisioned. Verizon purchased spectrum in the FCC’s 700 megahertz auction for national deployment of our 4G network, knowing it came with open access, non-discrimination and no-blocking requirements. Others are following suit.

Real facts: Verizon fought each of those conditions vehemently before the auction, and common understanding is that Verizon would likely have failed to match the auction’s reserve price had Google not competed with Verizon by bidding on the spectrum. Verizon has not yet deployed 4G networks in the United States. Fellow wireless carriers such as AT&T persist in a range of limitations to content, applications and services on their wireless networks. Finally, if Verizon has no objections to openness, then Verizon should have no objections to FCC rules promoting openness.