About the Verizon/Google 'Deal' on Net Neutrality
By Marvin Ammori, August 6, 2010
This week, Bloomberg reported that Verizon and Google have made a deal on network neutrality policy they'd like to see in America. That deal (surprise!) is Google can get special privileges on Verizon's network. The Huffington Post splash page mocks Google's slogan: "Don't Be Evil" with an asterisk. Asterisk: "unless it's profitable." Josh Silver called it the end of the Internet as we know it.
I want to explain why I think this deal matters, and why it doesn't. And it might not be for the reasons you think.
The Deal
Net neutrality is simply a proposed rule forbidding Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and other ISPs from engaging in special deals to block or favor certain content on the Internet; it's to keep the Internet an open general purpose network equally accessed by all innovators, speakers, and businesses. Like it is today. The carriers want to turn it into a controlled medium.
Among other things, according to the New York Times, the deal essentially says that Verizon will be able to cut special deals with any company--like, um, one called Google--to prioritize that company's traffic, giving that company an advantage online over any other content online. Google decided it could make more money getting special--or even exclusive--treatment on the Verizon network because few of their competitors could afford to get the same treatment.
(Note: Google is denying the Times report through a Tweet. I'll spell out the implications assuming the Times is right.)
Business Examples
So, as a business matter, let's say you use a Verizon mobile wireless card (an EVDO card) for your laptop (in addition to having a a Verizon mobile computer).
- Google's products can get priority on your laptop based on commercial deals.
- Google's Youtube may get Verizon-special treatment denied any competing video site, from Blip.tv to Netflix. (This is the example given by the New York Times.)
- Google's Orkut, a social network once known only for being big in Brazil, gets better treatment than Facebook.
- Google's Blogger--a blogging technology--gets the Verizon-special preference denied WordPress.
- Google's Chrome browser happens to work a lot better than Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox.
- Google's GChat video gets special treatment compared to video phone services like Video Skype.
- Google's Gmail, an email service, gets better treatment than Hotmail or Yahoo!
- Google Books gets special treatment denied any competitors.
- Google's domain name service gets preferred treatment denied competitors like OpenDNS, which could even be blocked under the deal.
- Google's advertising network can get Verizon network priorities.
- Google's Froogle site gets special treatment denied everything from Groupon to Ebay to all those random "deal of the day" sites.
- Google Voice could get special treatment compared with those other online phone services.
- Google's Picasa could get special treatment over Flikr, for photo albums.
- Google's Buzz could somehow get special treatment over Twitter.
- Even Google Wave could get priority... Really.
So, as a business matter, the deal is important. And, yes, it may be the end of the Internet as we know it, if the FCC blessed such deals. The deal yesterday announces that Verizon and Google open the door to all of this.
Lobbying Not Policy
This deal matters for lobbying. Essentially the business partners have agreed on how their DC lobbyists will approach a certain important issue on which they once disagreed. In some ways, it is like AIG and Goldman aligning their lobbying. Or maybe a few large fisheries joining forces with BP's lobbyists. Or a medical society joining with the insurance companies.
Hundreds of organizations have fought for net neutrality, and though Google was honestly one of my favorite allies (a lot of talented and nice people work in the DC shop), they were only one player among very many.
And Google and Verizon do not decide how to regulate themselves. On paper, at least (and that paper is the Constitution), we have a government of the people. We have an agency, the Federal Communications Commission, charged with protecting the public interest and that has declared a policy of ensuring an open Internet for all consumers and innovators, for all businesses from Expedia to Mint.com, for all speakers from bloggers to Twitter-celebrities to emailing teens and grandmas.
How this Deal Matters for Policy
This deal only proves that the biggest corporations have incentives to disadvantage innovators--which will harm our economic growth, job creation, and global competitiveness. It only proves that the threat to network neutrality in the market is real. It only proves that network neutrality rules are necessary. And it only proves that the FCC's negotiation-talks, which I discussed yesterday, receive little respect from the corporations engaged in them (maybe for good reason).
The deal does not indicate that US government policy has been decided. Especially when the Google-Verizon deal contradicts the policy position of a few people whom our Constitutional structure does imbue with authority over government-policy: President Obama (enjoy this speech at Google headquarters where he promised to take a backseat to no one on net neutrality) and the FCC Chair. Because those two strongly support network neutrality, you'd expect policy to serve all Americans. Unless I should put an asterisk after their names as well.
This post was originally published by The Huffington Post.
Free Press is a national, nonpartisan organization working to reform the media. Free Press does not support or oppose any candidate for public office. Through education, organizing and advocacy, we promote diverse and independent media ownership, strong public media and universal access to communications.
Marvin Ammori
Marvin Ammori is a founding faculty member of University of Nebraska-Lincoln's Space & Telecom Law LLM program, where he teaches cyberlaw, cyber-warfare law, and domestic and international telecom law.
Read Marvin's full bio »
Comments
Shop the latest styles Juicy
Shop the latest styles Juicy Couture handbags, juicy couture tracksuit.
Juicy couture sale, juicy couture outlet,100% quality guarantee.
Juicy Couture
Juicy Couture handbags
Juicy Couture bags
An online shop specializing in Herve Leger, Herve Leger Dress, Herve Leger Skirt,
Herve Leger Sale, Herve Leger Dresses.All new style in our store.
Herve Leger
Herve Leger Dress
Chaussures mode doudoune
Chaussures mode
doudoune moncler
Google Verizon needs a perminent timeout
I think the time has come for us all to consider what power the people have.
It is time to make a stand.
Consider this,...
What if everyone who believed the net neutrality is paramount, and on September 1st 2010, made a stand.
All of them dropped verizon phone, verizon wireless, verizon fios and verizon fios tv.
What if all of the people who believe this is important, did a similar thing to google? Stopped using google for anything. No Searches, no email, no google voice, no google maps, no buzz etc?
Do you think they would take notice?
Not just for a day, but a huge slap in their face. No more google , no more verizon ever. If the people take a stand. the companies will surely fail quickly.
While I would not want to see companies fail, I would prefer they live up to their word. When they don't live up to their word, and they think they are bigger than life, it is time to take them down a notch.
Verizon as a company can be wiped off the map in mere months if just 40% of the people canceled their accounts.
Google may take a bit longer. Keep in mind, the share holders would tell google what to do if they noticed a difference.
If other companies saw verizon fail then sprint and att would not attempt such an idiotic idea.
I will be leaving everything google and everything verizon on September 1st 2010.
Please join me.
Make a stand!
On September 1st, 2010, stop using Google for anything. Cancel your Verizon accounts.
Start now to set everything up to work around.
I will cut all their services on September 1st 2010.
Instead of verizon wireless I will use sprint.
Instead of verizon phone services I will use vonage.
Instead of verizon fios internet I will use time warner cable.
Instead of Fios TV I will use time warner Cable.
Instead of google maps I will use Bing.
Instead of google search I will use bing search.
Instead of google gmail I will use windows live or live.com
On September 1st, 2010 I will remove all things google or verizon from my cell phones and computer.
I will not come back to Verizon as I believe they overstepped their bounds.
I will not come back to google as I believe with this mistake they should fail.
Good Bye Verizon
Good Bye Google.
You signed my cancellation when you ended, or tried to end, net neutrality.
Please join me and make a stand on September 1st 2010 and end google and verizon instead of net neutrality.
thanks for the info reverse
thanks for the info
reverse phone lookup
Bad news comes in bunches FCC
Bad news comes in bunches
FCC Abandons Net Neutrality Compromise
Federal regulators are abandoning efforts to negotiate a compromise on so-called "network neutrality" rules. http://www.newslook.com/videos/237057-fcc-abandons-net-neutrality-compro...
What Net Neutrality Means (or meant) for Journalists
Pulitzer Center Projects Coordinator Christina Maria Paschyn interviews David Sohn of the Center for Democracy and Technology on how the recent court ruling on net neutrality could affect the state of journalism.http://www.newslook.com/videos/202294-what-net-neutrality-means-for-journalists?autoplay=true
Google & CIA Fund Web Monitor The investment arms of the CIA and Google are both backing a company that monitors the web in real time — and says it uses that information to predict the future. http://www.newslook.com/videos/237574-google-cia-fund-web-monitor?autopl...
Google and Verizon pact
Bad news comes in bunches
FCC Abandons Net Neutrality Compromise
Federal regulators are abandoning efforts to negotiate a compromise on so-called "network neutrality" rules. http://www.newslook.com/videos/237057-fcc-abandons-net-neutrality-compro...
What Net Neutrality Means (or meant) for Journalists
Pulitzer Center Projects Coordinator Christina Maria Paschyn interviews David Sohn of the Center for Democracy and Technology on how the recent court ruling on net neutrality could affect the state of journalism.http://www.newslook.com/videos/202294-what-net-neutrality-means-for-journalists?autoplay=true
Google & CIA Fund Web Monitor The investment arms of the CIA and Google are both backing a company that monitors the web in real time — and says it uses that information to predict the future. http://www.newslook.com/videos/237574-google-cia-fund-web-monitor?autopl...
some thing here is not the
some thing here is not the one i want ...moncler jackets Louis Vuitton outlet links of london
I agree reverse phone lookup
I agree
reverse phone lookup
So let's boycott Verizon...
... and any telephone company that attempts the same....
robemick76
Im not favor...
Las Vegas web site design
internet advertising and marketing
without fear that their links
without fear that their links of london voices and images will be stamped out by forces seeking Louis Vuitton outlet to make them invisible. This is what closing moncler jackets the digital divide is all about.
"Even Google Wave could get
"Even Google Wave could get priority... Really."
Um... Yeah, about that...
http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/aug2010/ca2010086_174386.htm
This whole thing could be
This whole thing could be fixed if they just stepped back and observed their surroundings! This whole thing could be fixed if they just stepped back and observed their surroundings! This whole thing could be fixed if they just stepped back and observed their surroundings!
Stump Grinder Teeth
I have doubts that this deal is real
I am quite skeptical that any deal harming net neutrality has been made between Google and Verizon.
First of all, the evidence of such a deal is almost non-existent. According to the Bloomberg article that you cite, the source is "two people briefed by the companies." The New York Times cites "people close to the negotiations who were not authorized to speak publicly about them." These unknown persons may have their own reasons for saying such things, and they may not be telling the truth. Remember that one party "close to these negotations" is Verizon itself.
Second, Google and Verizon both publicly, strongly and directly deny it.
Third, Google has been a strong supporter of net neutrality for years. Probably the strongest supporter there is. What would have changed to cause them to alter their position?
Fourth (and this is the most important of my reasons): Net neutrality is strongly in Google's financial interest. Google makes almost all of its revenue from advertising, and the lion's share of that advertising is on pages displaying search engine results. The greater the diversity of content available online, the more people will go searching for it, and as they search, they view and click on ads, which is what fills Google's coffers.
I find this to be a very important point: that Google's corporate interests on the matter of net neutrality are aligned with those of the public at the present time because Google benefits from having a rich diversity of easily-accessible content on the Internet (not just its own content, but content on the Internet in general). Whereas certain other corporations might like to restrict access so as to force the public to choose their own offerings, that would not be consistent with Google's business model. That's why I believe that Google is sincere in its support for Net Neutrality.
Google has been under attack quite a bit lately for the ways in which it is *supporting* Net Neutrality. The Republican minority has been gnawing away at some arguably inappropriate contacts between Google and former Google employee Andrew McLaughlin, who is now the White House's Deputy Chief Technology Officer - contacts that were apparently supportive of Net Neutrality. A little organization called Consumer Watchdog that has no history of support for Net Neutrality has been attacking Google for those contacts, as well as any other molehills that it can blow up into mountain ranges, while holding a joint press conference and otherwise coordinating its campaign with Google competitors such as Microsoft. And now that same organization is attacking Google for supposedly *abandoning* Net Neutrality in these talks with Verizon.
All of this makes me wonder whether there is a scheme afoot to sow suspicion among the ranks of those who support Net Neutrality, so as to weaken the coalition and thereby undermine its success. And what more diabolical way to do that than to accuse Google of secretly working *against* net neutrality! What do you think? Has Karl Rove secretly joined the ranks of the telecom lobbyists?
I think your 4 points are
I think your 4 points are absolutely ridiculous especially..all of them, take a course in finance and business admin bc it makes perfect sense it's all about the $ who pays for those adds? You'll still get'em just @slower speeds unless you shell over more $ to put it short and sweet but no surprise the majority of ppl are IGNORANT!
I read the first 'sentence'
I read the first 'sentence' of your reply and scoffed, no need to continue reading.
Seems clear I was wrong about this
You didn't understand my argument but I was wrong anyway because if you look at the Google/Verizon deal just announced it makes an exception for wireless plus a whole category of new services. It is bad news and I'm shocked because my arguments still make perfect sense but there's a lot we don't know about what goes on behind closed doors.
Re: you comment: we are not talking about the speed of advertising but rather the overall available of lots of diverse content for which people can search. That diversity could be choked off if net neutrality is violated and I can't see how that wouldn't hurt Google's bottom line profoundly.
My argument still makes sense but clearly I was wrong so now we have to fight this at the level of government.
Oh, here's the dreaded deal announcement: http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-for...
I have doubts that this deal is real
I am quite skeptical that any deal harming net neutrality has been made between Google and Verizon.
First of all, the evidence of such a deal is almost non-existent. According to the Bloomberg article that you cite, the source is "two people briefed by the companies." The New York Times cites "people close to the negotiations who were not authorized to speak publicly about them." These unknown persons may have their own reasons for saying such things, and they may not be telling the truth. Remember that one party "close to these negotations" is Verizon itself.
Second, Google and Verizon both publicly, strongly and directly deny it.
Third, Google has been a strong supporter of net neutrality for years. Probably the strongest supporter there is. What would have changed to cause them to alter their position?
Fourth (and this is the most important of my reasons): Net neutrality is strongly in Google's financial interest. Google makes almost all of its revenue from advertising, and the lion's share of that advertising is on pages displaying search engine results. The greater the diversity of content available online, the more people will go searching for it, and as they search, they view and click on ads, which is what fills Google's coffers.
I find this to be a very important point: that Google's corporate interests on the matter of net neutrality are aligned with those of the public at the present time because Google benefits from having a rich diversity of easily-accessible content on the Internet (not just its own content, but content on the Internet in general). Whereas certain other corporations might like to restrict access so as to force the public to choose their own offerings, that would not be consistent with Google's business model. That's why I believe that Google is sincere in its support for Net Neutrality.
Google has been under attack quite a bit lately for the ways in which it is *supporting* Net Neutrality. The Republican minority has been gnawing away at some arguably inappropriate contacts between Google and former Google employee Andrew McLaughlin, who is now the White House's Deputy Chief Technology Officer - contacts that were apparently supportive of Net Neutrality. A little organization called Consumer Watchdog that has no history of support for Net Neutrality has been attacking Google for those contacts, as well as any other molehills that it can blow up into mountain ranges, while holding a joint press conference and otherwise coordinating its campaign with Google competitors such as Microsoft. And now that same organization is attacking Google for supposedly *abandoning* Net Neutrality in these talks with Verizon.
All of this makes me wonder whether there is a scheme afoot to sow suspicion among the ranks of those who support Net Neutrality, so as to weaken the coalition and thereby undermine its success. And what more diabolical way to do that than to accuse Google of secretly working *against* net neutrality! What do you think? Has Karl Rove secretly joined the ranks of the telecom lobbyists?
To see how wrong I was...
Take a look at Google's announcement of this deal. It exempts wireless from net neutrality. Not good. We have to fight this at the level of government now. Sorry for the incorrect analysis; it still makes sense to me and I'm trying to figure out why Google would do what it apparently has done:
Here's the dreadful announcement: http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-for...
robemick76
Las Vegas web site design
internet advertising and marketing
Hopefully this deal isn't
Hopefully this deal isn't real, but if it is, aside from violating net neutrality, it would also be a blatant, textbook violation of anti-trust laws. Of course, those laws seem to be routinely ignored by big businesses and the government, so i fail to see how that would help us.
Sponsorship based media = lobbying problem
We are losing our citizenship to the lobbying problem and to corporations that think they exist to serve disconnected owners and not society. Charters were to enable works for society.
People need to know that there is a massive amount of dark fiber, but they also need to know that search does not need to be ad driven (its actually not that resource intensive- doesn't require googles massvie centers) but it does make demand based advertising obsolete. Its already damaged demand based advertising and it doing so its helping to harm a propaganda system replace our free press.
Sponsors take over, they censor and control what get seen which enables them to hold politicians hostage and remove our political representation for the benefit of a plutonomy. Suddenly sufferage is a "liability." This sponsorship based media is about as optional as a socially useless class of so called owners that serve no purpose beyond the venture stage (which they hardly participate in.) We can reduce all such carriers to communications firms (dumb pipes) or firms that provide a subcription that provides constant ad free access to everything the net could carry for one low montly fee (call it an ISP fee.) These firms are also ripe to be converted into wholly employeed owned firms.
Their plans for wireless are ridiculous. Would we want to be interupted during a phone call? How about a business phone call. Wireless needs the heaviest regulation to ensure protections. Just be cause the US is lagging and getting it wrong does not mean the rest of the world will. The constant theft of our time and attention by advertisers needs to be addressed. When someone is victimized in this way they should be able to get access to the full financial gain plus a penalty because most people would opt out of everything for life especially when high quality product information awaits on the otherside of every user initiated search.
Bottom line is that search has made advertising obsolete (at the very least we can still use ad blocking,) and it along with the interenet and IT have empowered people which has resulted in undermining or numbering the days of the lobbying and spin system. Its also fueled voting in a way that threatens the plutonomy and may make society for the benefit of society and less about wage slavery and needless social babysitting. Enough internet and the political partys and oil and needless wars and needless banking profits come under fire. Its a threat just like MJ was during Vietnam.
Spyder ski wear
Sell cheap spyder jacket,spyder ski wear,spyder ski jackets,the north face wear,the north face hats,the north face gloves.the north face bags,the north face climbing shoes,sale up to 70% off,free and fast shipping.You can find your spyder jackets,north face jacket from here!"