Google-Verizon Pact: It Gets Worse
By Craig Aaron, August 10, 2010
So Google and Verizon went public yesterday with their "policy framework" -- better known as the pact to end the Internet as we know it.
News of this deal broke this week, sparking a public outcry that's seen hundreds of thousands of Internet users calling on Google to live up to its "Don't Be Evil" pledge.
But cut through the platitudes the two companies (Googizon, anyone?) offered on today's press call, and you'll find this deal is even worse than advertised.
The proposal is one massive loophole that sets the stage for the corporate takeover of the Internet.
Real Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers can't discriminate between different kinds of online content and applications. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies. It's what makes sure the next Google, out there in a garage somewhere, has just as good a chance as any giant corporate behemoth to find its audience and thrive online.
What Google and Verizon are proposing is fake Net Neutrality. You can read their framework for yourself here or go here to see Google twisting itself in knots about this suddenly "thorny issue." But here are the basics of what the two companies are proposing:
1. Under their proposal, there would be no Net Neutrality on wireless networks -- meaning anything goes, from blocking websites and applications to pay-for-priority treatment.
2. Their proposed standard for "non-discrimination" on wired networks is so weak that actions like Comcast's widely denounced blocking of BitTorrent would be allowed.
3. The deal would let ISPs like Verizon -- instead of Internet users like you -- decide which applications deserve the best quality of service. That's not the way the Internet has ever worked, and it threatens to close the door on tomorrow's innovative applications. (If RealPlayer had been favored a few years ago, would we ever have gotten YouTube?)
4. The deal would allow ISPs to effectively split the Internet into "two pipes" -- one of which would be reserved for "managed services," a pay-for-play platform for content and applications. This is the proverbial toll road on the information superhighway, a fast lane reserved for the select few, while the rest of us are stuck on the cyber-equivalent of a winding dirt road.
5. The pact proposes to turn the Federal Communications Commission into a toothless watchdog, left fruitlessly chasing consumer complaints but unable to make rules of its own. Instead, it would leave it up to unaccountable (and almost surely industry-controlled) third parties to decide what the rules should be.
If there's a silver lining in this whole fiasco it's that, last I checked anyway, it wasn't up to Google and Verizon to write the rules. That's why we have Congress and the FCC.
Certainly by now we should have learned -- from AIG, Massey Energy, BP, you name it -- what happens when we let big companies regulate themselves or hope they'll do the right thing.
We need the FCC -- with the backing of Congress and President Obama -- to step and do the hard work of governing. That means restoring the FCC's authority to protect Internet users and safeguarding real Net Neutrality once and for all.
Such a move might not be popular on Wall Street or even in certain corners of Silicon Valley, but it's the kind of leadership the public needs right now.
If you haven't yet told the FCC why we need Net Neutrality, please do it now.
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.
Craig Aaron
Craig Aaron, president and CEO, took the leadership of Free Press and the Free Press Action Fund in April 2011.
Read Craig's full bio »
Comments
Net Neutrality
It is vital to our future to get the so called Net Neutrality regulations being considered by the FCC in the USA done in a fair and rational way. We need to continue the global trend towards faster broadband access for everyone. This implies that a either a centrally planned effort to improve broadband service is set in place, or that a for-profit decentralized model is found that will promote innovation while preserving fair and open access to broadband IP service for everyone.
The Internet should be viewed as a public utility with no locality. At an electronic level, it is a ubiquitous digital network that carries packets of signals. What the signals are is of no concern to the network. We should never legislate as to the meaning of the bits that stream on the Internet, it is the volume of bits that is of concern.
Carriers are rightly due the fees they require to carry the signals over their own proprietary networks, be they wired, on optical cable, or on some future medium. It is the volume of bits that are directed from an ISP to a final subscriber that should be priced accordingly, not the speed that these bits are carried at.
Treating the content of the Internet IP digital packets as an economic object is analogous to treating electricity as value added content, and pricing it according to the type of appliance that is consuming it! Logically, it is the amount of electricity that a subscriber consumes that is priced by KWh. We should allow the Internet to follow the same model.
Internet carrier networks should be allowed to set up pricing models that are content neutral, but not volume neutral. We should all pay per Mb downloaded, not by the speed at which is our ISP provides for us. We should all get the best speed possible at the same price. Speed based tiers are not consistent, because most ISPs have shared networks whose speeds vary according to the number of subscribers that are on the W/LAN at any point in time.
If the current Google / Verizon proposal is allowed to creep into the FCC regulations, we would be in effect classifying the content as being “old’ or “new”. Whatever content is classified as “new” will be subject to tolls and premium fees. Is it not true that the future content will also be carried by digital packet networks? What is old or new about the same digital bits?
The only valid criteria for content based pricing structures should be for VPN networks that provide secure and private encrypted packet switched services to SCADA grids and medical, emergency response, military or police services over pre-defined ports on the IP stack. The FCC should be the precursor of a global Internet regulating body that norms these VPN ports.
Let the Internet grow and develop as a ubiquitous public network, provided by either the private or the public sector, whose content is open and not regulated, but where the amount of information carried is an economic object, not quality of the information. Information is a quantum entity, at an electronic level it is simply digital bits carried on packets.
If we know a quantum level, it is because we know it’s meaning, thereby changing the underlying quantum. A quantum is changed by knowing it.
Re: Net Neutrality
A clear and intelligent perspective.... tho I would say that such an essential service needs to also be regulated for the cost per Mb transferred because this would not be the first time that companies price fix. Sure, let them make a fair profit but not at the expense of the greater good. If they can't make a fair return on their investments then perhaps imminent domain applies.
Remember, these are the same companies that have been bidding to buy up all of the public owned bandwidth that would allow us to create a wireless network nationwide. If they want to use it then it must be to our benefit.
Sorry but I don't see how
Sorry but I don't see how giving the goverment more control over the internet is a great fix, they seem to mess up just about everything they touch, I can't imagine what they would do to the internet.
Re: Sorry but I don't see how
The Government invented the Internet... so I guess they didn't mess that up.
It really amazes me when people think that the government is going to "take over" something and that big business is the one to put your trust in. Truth is, either of these institutions can be corrupted & neither is perfect. But at least with the government we have a chance to be heard and a chance to push for our best interests. Corporations are only answerable to their board and to a lesser extent, their shareholders. Unless we make laws to keep them in line they'll do whatever they decide will make them more money, which usually means screwing the rest of us.
Let's be clear... the government's role now is simply whether or not it will enforce Net Neutrality like they have with your telephone for the past 70 years. Imagine if you picked up your home phone and the phone company wouldn't let you order a pizza from anyone but Dominos. That's what were talking about here.
I hope you understand before it's too late.
Re: Sorry but I don't see how
The Government invented the Internet... so I guess they didn't mess that up.
It really amazes me when people think that the government is going to "take over" something and that big business is the one to put your trust in. Truth is, either of these institutions can be corrupted & neither is perfect. But at least with the government we have a chance to be heard and a chance to push for our best interests. Corporations are only answerable to their board and to a lesser extent, their shareholders. Unless we make laws to keep them in line they'll do whatever they decide will make them more money, which usually means screwing the rest of us.
Let's be clear... the government's role now is simply whether or not it will enforce Net Neutrality like they have with your telephone for the past 70 years. Imagine if you picked up your home phone and the phone company wouldn't let you order a pizza from anyone but Dominos. That's what were talking about here.
I hope you understand before it's too late.
Why??
No business should be allowed to degrade the quality of our freedom, environment or lives. Yes, we do have the right to tell them what to do. Absolutely! Just look at the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico if you doubt the need to regulate greed... and remember chief executive Tony Hayward's comment "What the hell did we do to deserve this?" to gauge how much they care.
If Google is proving to be yet another corporate crook... why are "Google-Analytics" or
Googleadservices" scripts running on this page???
Priorities and Unity
The Internet belongs to the people. Big business did not invent it but they are trying to steal it. Their profit is NOT more important than our right to clear, free and equal communication. It NEVER is and there is no argument that will change that fact.
Remember that "We the People" are more powerful than big business... unless we are divided in our goals or become apathetic about our own best interests. Stand strong and we will win a battle that's implications will powerfully shape the lives of generations to come.
Priorities and Unity
The Internet belongs to the people. Big business did not invent it but they are trying to steal it. Their profit is NOT more important than our right to clear, free and equal communication. It NEVER is and there is no argument that will change that fact.
Remember that "We the People" are more powerful than big business... unless we are divided in our goals or become apathetic about our own best interests. Stand strong and we will win a battle that's implications will powerfully shape the lives of generations to come.
Panic for naught
No offense, but when did everyone get to tell all businesses how they should do business? If verizon and google want to make spaceships instead of providing internet services, they reserve the right to do so, right? You yourselves have paraphrased what the actual deal is much like the Ohio anti-casino campaigns that were in bed with the neighboring state's casinos in an effort to keep the revenues out of ohio that would actually make things better. Verizon is looking for the ability to make services that they provide and have customers pay a monthly service for work better. Much like every other carrier has internet speeds at different prices (despite the fact that its provided thru the same lines and costs them no more to provide you on landline support) just so they can make more on the people who want their service better. Most companies already pay to get their names shifted to the top of a search result list, or find every way possible to make it happen. Net Neutrality will never truly exist because people in reality don't want it to. American business is built on the big dog walking all over the little dog, and doing as I say, not as I do. There's nothing stopping you from going to another provider to get your info, so if you don't like it, stop whining about it and use a different provider. Just good luck getting better service than you would on Veroogle.
Re: Panic for naught
I opt for keeping the Internet under government control. This writer says "find another provider" but how many Googles are there? Besides, what gives Google/Verizon the right to control which sites I can select?
Re: "when did everyone get to tell all businesses how they should do business?" A business does not operate in a vacuum but is a socially responsible entity. For example, its employees are not slaves or property of the company but free members of society. Moreover, since the company has a relationship with its consumers, it has a responsibility to them. That's what consumer fraud protection laws are about. This notion, and post, is naive and backwards.
We gave them the spectrum
"when did everyone get to tell all businesses how they should do business?"
That wireless spectrum they're using is public property. It should be used in ways that benefit the public, not to fatten the coffers at a few big companies.
Good luck to you Panic For Naught...
Unfortunately, you are correct when you say the American business is built on the big dog walking all over the little dog.
This is why we must stop this internet takeover, because of the very reason above. I will not be able to just stop whining about it and use a different provider.
I will end up choosing the giant corporations rather than the small business, because the cost of their services will be cheaper and for most people that will be very affordable.
The result is: There won't be an other provider that will be able to compete with them and console my "whining". And that is when monopoly starts and FREEDOM ends!
Panic for naught
No offense, but when did everyone get to tell all businesses how they should do business? If verizon and google want to make spaceships instead of providing internet services, they reserve the right to do so, right? You yourselves have paraphrased what the actual deal is much like the Ohio anti-casino campaigns that were in bed with the neighboring state's casinos in an effort to keep the revenues out of ohio that would actually make things better. Verizon is looking for the ability to make services that they provide and have customers pay a monthly service for work better. Much like every other carrier has internet speeds at different prices (despite the fact that its provided thru the same lines and costs them no more to provide you on landline support) just so they can make more on the people who want their service better. Most companies already pay to get their names shifted to the top of a search result list, or find every way possible to make it happen. Net Neutrality will never truly exist because people in reality don't want it to. American business is built on the big dog walking all over the little dog, and doing as I say, not as I do. There's nothing stopping you from going to another provider to get your info, so if you don't like it, stop whining about it and use a different provider. Just good luck getting better service than you would on Veroogle.
Letters to the President
suggested text for a letter to the president or to your congressperson or senator:
Dear Mr. President,
In the area of telecommunications policy
it is a completely outrageous position for
Google and Verizon to state that THEY
will delegate certain authority to the
FCC regarding wireless networks.
Need they and the public at large
be reminded that
federal regulations are promulgated
by the Congress and the
president acting on behalf of the people?
Who runs the country?
the corporations or the people?
Please remind google and verizon that the
people own the "airwaves"
not google and verizon!
Bottom Line
Bottom line: Once again, we are being sold out -- by, from, and to corporate powers. Do you see Obama on stage making fierce pledges to save or protect Net Neutrality -- no matter what? Not a chance. It's the same scenario as with the Public Option.
Action: Boycotts of Google's search engine. Pledge to use a non-affiliated search engine (and stick to it) from now on until Google changes its stance. This will take time. But, if enough people make the move, it will get results.
Action:
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Boycott-Google-Save-Net-Neutrality/1049680...
Boycott
Boycott Google Petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/boycott-google-save-net-neutrality/
Why is google still listed as a proponent of Net Neutrality
Why is google still listed as a proponent of Net Neutrality in light of it's deal with Verizon? Shouldn't their at least be some disclaimers?
The previous comment is the
The previous comment is the most inane thing I have ever read. Globalization is coming? Dude, it was here the day of the silk road. Those 'evil corporations' are not acting in just evil ways- they think they are innovating. Isn't it their right, just the same as it is your right, to innovate the way they see fit? If you don't like it then innovate faster and better. And 'throw away your phones?" Sounds like someone is throwing in the towel. The reason innovation happens is because pressures like this force us to think of new ways to approach the internet, new ways to spread content, and new ways to bypass the said 'evil corporations'. So, instead of throwing it all away, everybody should go buy new phones, computers, and tv's and hack the shit out of them. Moving to mountains... well, that's for you to decide.
Socialist propaganda.....the
Socialist propaganda.....the backers of "Net Nuetrality " have an agenda....its to shutbdown free speech....DO YOU WANT A NAMELESS government worker......calling the shots?!
Don't be a cock. You're idea
Don't be a cock. You're idea of freedom means views you don't care for being suppressed by the man with the most dollars. That is not free speech, it is a dictatorship of the market.
No. We'd rather have a
No. We'd rather have a nameless faceless corporate profiteer calling the shots - shooting down our speech.
We are being robbed. This is
We are being robbed. This is one of the saddest times I have ever seen in regard to the internet. Why innovate, if this occurs? Why create? So that the very companies that allow us a mere connection to the internet can profit ten fold from our hard work? This is ridiculous. This sounds to me like the days of AOL, but 1000 times worse. All anyone sees here is $$$. And how they can make more of it.. Globalization is coming. Total World Domination by major corporations. Throw away your phones, your computers, your tv's, and move to the mountains somewhere far away. The world is changing and the younger generations will simply be indoctrinated into believing that the internet isn't free and that they have to pay for everything... for them it'll be normal. For us, it'll be the death of everything we come to know as "free" internet. This saddens me to the core. I have been developing websites since before Geocities was even a thought. I haven't felt this way until now. I do not want to develop and create content for companies that will decide if whether or not it is "credible" enough to be displayed on the internet.
The previous comment is the
The previous comment is the most inane thing I have ever read. Globalization is coming? Dude, it was here the day of the silk road. Those 'evil corporations' are not acting in just evil ways- they think they are innovating. Isn't it their right, just the same as it is your right, to innovate the way they see fit? If you don't like it then innovate faster and better. And 'throw away your phones?" Sounds like someone is throwing in the towel. The reason innovation happens is because pressures like this force us to think of new ways to approach the internet, new ways to spread content, and new ways to bypass the said 'evil corporations'. So, instead of throwing it all away, everybody should go buy new phones, computers, and tv's and hack the shit out of them. Moving to mountains... well, that's for you to decide.
The previous comment is the
The previous comment is the most inane thing I have ever read. Globalization is coming? Dude, it was here the day of the silk road. Those 'evil corporations' are not acting in just evil ways- they think they are innovating. Isn't it their right, just the same as it is your right, to innovate the way they see fit? If you don't like it then innovate faster and better. And 'throw away your phones?" Sounds like someone is throwing in the towel. The reason innovation happens is because pressures like this force us to think of new ways to approach the internet, new ways to spread content, and new ways to bypass the said 'evil corporations'. So, instead of throwing it all away, everybody should go buy new phones, computers, and tv's and hack the shit out of them. Moving to mountains... well, that's for you to decide.
Use your time wisely, do not
Use your time wisely, do not read Huffington Post articles about the subject. Go straight to the source and read the quite readable two page policy recommendation.
https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/viewer?url=http://www.google.com/go...
Lets all remember
1. We don't actually need wireless carriers to do wireless internet.
2. Search doesn't actually need ad revenue to work- yes its that efficient.
3. There is no shortage of bandwidth due to all the in place fiber that they are choosing not to talk about or light to create the impression of a shortage.
4. We do not have to let them charge us to much for these services or arbitrarily limit them to try to do so and above all we do not have to give them the power to force us to look at things becaus this is the theft of our time and attention and it enables lobbying as encourages puffing/fraud.
5. Its time we pull the plug on these fools (managment players etc) Its time for a system like the open highway system. They don't like single payer or open highways (they like toll roads) but that is what they are going to get. We can force an open system down their throats through the 'we the people process' and make an example of them in the process by making them quickly irrelevant. We the people can also change the tax code so that all large companies are converted to wholly employee owned entities. Corporate charters came into existence of the benefit of society not a disconnected owner class. At best these companies are dumb pipes and let them not forget that the wealth of the nation and the voice of the nation belongs to us.
6. Just as an after thought its probably going to be a good start place to take apart cable as it is the worst possible model. They should face capitulation a constant set of choices that involve steep schedule of mandatory rate reductions or steps that open them up and make them into private dumb pipes- if in exercising choice they choose the reductions they reductions should be steep enough to drive them into insolvancy so they will be consumed by more cooparative players. That's more choice than they've given their captive audiences. Let the new consumer protection agency take them on as well.
You know everyone is painting
You know everyone is painting an evil picture on Google when most of us don’t understand whats really going on. All Google is saying is that the internet is young and that the government should not place any restrictions on it as of yet.
Google truly does no evil. Or do they? There is this one article I read at http://tech-senses.com/ called called “How doing Business With Google Almost Killed A Company”. That is probably the most evil thing Google has ever done.