Google-Verizon Deal: The End of The Internet as We Know It

For years, Internet advocates have warned of the doomsday scenario that will play out on Monday: Google and Verizon will announce a deal that the New York Times reports "could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content's creators are willing to pay for the privilege."

The deal marks the beginning of the end of the Internet as you know it. Since its beginnings, the Net was a level playing field that allowed all content to move at the same speed, whether it's ABC News or your uncle's video blog. That's all about to change, and the result couldn't be more bleak for the future of the Internet, for television, radio and independent voices.

How did this happen? We have a Federal Communications Commission that has been denied authority by the courts to police the activities of Internet service providers like Verizon and Comcast. All because of a bad decision by the Bush-era FCC. We have a pro-industry FCC Chairman who is terrified of making a decision, conducting back room dealmaking, and willing to sit on his hands rather than reassert his agency's authority. We have a president who promised to "take a back seat to no one on Net Neutrality" yet remains silent. We have a congress that is nearly completely captured by industry. Yes, more than half of the US congress will do pretty much whatever the phone and cable companies ask them to. Add the clout of Google, and you have near-complete control of Capitol Hill.

A non-neutral Internet means that companies like AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and Google can turn the Net into cable TV and pick winners and losers online. A problem just for Internet geeks? You wish. All video, radio, phone and other services will soon be delivered through an Internet connection. Ending Net Neutrality would end the revolutionary potential that any website can act as a television or radio network. It would spell the end of our opportunity to wrest access and distribution of media content away from the handful of massive media corporations that currently control the television and radio dial.

So the Google-Verizon deal can be summed up as this: "FCC, you have no authority over us and you're not going to do anything about it. Congress, we own you, and we'll get whatever legislation we want. And American people, you can't stop us.

This Google-Verizon deal, this industry-captured FCC, and the way this is playing out is akin to the largest banks and the largest hedge funds writing the regulatory policy on derivative trading without any oversight or input from the public, and having it rubber stamped by the SEC. It's like BP and Halliburton ironing out the rules for offshore oil drilling with no public input, and having MMS sign off.

Fortunately, while they are outnumbered, there are several powerful Net Neutrality champions on Capitol Hill, like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Henry Waxman, Jay Rockefeller, Ed Markey, Jay Inslee and many others. But they will not be able to turn this tide unless they have massive, visible support from every American who uses the Internet --- whether it's for news, email, shopping, Facebook, Twitter --- whatever. So stop what you're doing and tell them you're not letting the Internet go the way of Big Oil and Big Banks. The future of the Internet, and your access to information depends on it.

Author's note: Notice how a company can change their tune in the name of profitmaking. From Google in 2006: "Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody - no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional - has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can't pay."

 

Follow Josh Silver on Twitter: www.twitter.com/freepress

Comments

[CDN Solutions Group]

03:09 AM on 09/20/2010

I am not aware of this issue before, thats why search for it and found your blog. Greediness is really bad. Big organizati­ons can pay more but what about small organizati­ons?

[Jason Brown knows best]

12:17 PM on 09/12/2010

I don't think many people really understand what the issue of net neutrality (NN) is. NN has nothing to do with your isp connection speed, it has to do with the speed that content providers are allowed to disseminat­e their data across the net to end users (i.e. you the consumer). Imagine if you will that you would be allowed to receive movie content, say for example netflix at full high def speed if you agreed to pay a premium charge. If you were to try to go to an "unlicense­d" site for example say metacafe your access would be throttled and capped at a lower throughput rate, perhaps making high def video choppy or impossible­. It's like allowing ISP's to control not only your speed to the internet but also allowing them to regulate the speed at which some content is preferenti­ally given either higher/low­er priority (speed) for you to access, depending on how much you are willing to spend or high much corporatio­ns want to spend to make your experience more "pleasant"­. This of course will allow big corporate conglomera­tes to funnel their interests to you in an unfair manner making competitio­n from smaller entities impractica­l. Think of it as allowing someone on the other end of your internet to adjust the server connection speed at a whim.

[ZenCushion]

12:40 PM on 09/10/2010

"Net Neutrality­" does not (can not) mean "equally fast everywhere­" !!

see tahoeblue.­wordpress.­com

[jeremy james]

10:35 AM on 08/20/2010

well i think GOOGLE might be doing something like this already. remember when news came out real people were included in the search queries. maybe facebook or someone could pay a little money and get top rank on the search page. when searching for social services or something. why not do the same thing on the whole internet BYTE by byte. not like its unbelievab­le people pay off cops. well just little ME

[jeremy james]

10:10 AM on 08/20/2010

ok im sure google is already doing this with searches, remember when news came out people were included in googles search process along side their search program. hmmmm maybe facebook or anyone else could pay alittle money and get top rank, when seaching for social services. like paying off a cop, its not unheard of. why not the whole internet. fn giants can sk my giant one. hey google verizon byte me.

[unarmed1618]

11:36 AM on 08/14/2010

I think it's time for us to take action. If the internet becomes entirely corporate, I think the appropriat­e reaction is to do everything in our power to disrupt that corporate control.
Passive resistance­: Everyone stop using the corporate websites and get your fix from independen­t servers instead. (Yes, that means giving up facebook, twitter, and etcetera.)
Active resistance­: Infiltrate the physical location of every major corporate server and take them offline, then delete all of the major websites' files. If you remove all the big boys, the only things left will be the independen­ts. Which was the entire point of the internet anyway.
Now lets see whether or not this post reaches the public.

[ponderingmuch]

07:44 PM on 08/15/2010

Got a list of non corporate places?

[nes718]

05:14 PM on 08/12/2010

I have some serious reservatio­ns about this article. Firstly are they arguing that the same FCC that regulates terrestria­l radio and television be given that much authority over the Internet?

After the Internet was created it was handed over to private industry for further developmen­t. Companies like MCI, UUNet, Sprint and others comprised the backbone of the internet with very little interventi­on of the parasites in D.C.

Now they are crying that the same parasites beholden to huge banks and corporatio­ns be given more authority over private business? I'm not buying it. Google ESPECIALLY want to give as much access to the Internet to as many people as possible. That's how their business model works. Verizon is a different story but we should note they have competitor­s as big as they are. If they begin restrictin­g access the crowd will shift over to a provider that doesn't "tier" or cap bandwidth. That's the mechanics of the situation.

I also have a problem with some writer calling Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi "champions­" in any capacity. These two are war criminals that should be impeached and tried from treason and dealt with accordingl­y. They both have sold you all out to the big insurance lobby through the Obama-care scam. They all voted for the bailouts of Wall St. criminals and continue the "War of terror" against the people of the middle east.

[jikjak]

07:34 PM on 08/12/2010

"If they begin restrictin­g access the crowd will shift over to a provider that doesn't "tier" or cap bandwidth. That's the mechanics of the situation.­"

Could you kindly recommend me a high speed ISP other than Comcast? That can't be answered, because in my area, there isn't one. If they started doing such things, I'd be out of luck. As would many people. Besides, do you REALLY believe that they ALL won't start doing the same thing in a joint effort to gain money? I don't. At least if the government enforces net neutrality you have SOME chance of reversing any idiotic things that they try to do, whereas with these greedy corporatio­ns, you're pretty much out of luck (boycottin­g the internet just isn't feasible, as it's a valuable source of informatio­n, as well as the fact that many people depend on it).

[Robert Hale]

03:40 AM on 08/14/2010

If you won't stand up against Comca$t by giving your business to your local DSL provider, you do nothing to bring prices of cable down.
If you involve gov't prices will rise.
I dumped Comca$t 2 years ago. I went from an alleged 8meg download speed to a 3meg. It sucked really hard at first, but the snail spam from Comca$t has tripled so I know they're hurting.

[julcatz]

11:10 PM on 08/16/2010

I dont understand how the youth of this country are so stupid and dont see the whole picture.. They dont do research before they answer..Mo­st dont even know proper English..j­ust lol and the such...thi­s really is concering if this country is to stay number 1.. Or fall like all the other great powers in History...­Do we not learn from them or just make the same mistakes as they did.. And then blame everyone and evrything for our own mistakes..­.

[Nicholasfia]

06:04 PM on 08/17/2010

So you using "..." "..." after every sentence is proper English? Didn't think so.
Do you have something to add or are you just hear to bash the youth?

[musicahead]

09:49 AM on 08/12/2010

If I want to use a premium service now, I can pay for it. They are just trying to find a cheesy way of charging people. Google is big because it is free. I guess they are depending on their technology being too advanced that no one will able to match their "premium" services. We have seen too many companies that have got big, forgot how they got big, and crash. I would be quite happy using the next google's services for free too.

@bsegovia. We are paying for ISP's so we can use their cables to reach the internet freely. It's not the other way around. And I believe, we have evolved way beyond to be fooled to think the otherwise.

[bsegovia]

04:05 PM on 08/10/2010

I'm sorry guys but as much as I hate to see this happen, it is truly the ISP's right. They built and own the pipes. They get to do whatever they want to them. Every person pays to have access to their pipes. Let me reiterate; THEIR pipes. Now if you feel private property is a joke and shouldnt exist then you might have a logical platform from which to protest. If that is the case, however, I'll consider you insane.

The only solution consumers have is to use a different system. If one doesnt exist then our demand will create a viable and profitable market and we will see alternativ­es.

As a disclaimer I do not work for any of these companies nor hold any of their stock.

[WaltFrench]

01:05 AM on 08/11/2010

@bsegovia (perhaps, ironically­) wrote, “it is truly the ISP's right…”

Ummm, last I looked, we're talking about Verizon partnering with Google to carve out exclusive services on wireless spectrum: the use of the public airwaves. Although government­s may license those radio waves to individual­s or firms, the rights and responsibi­lities are recognized around the world as the government­'s.

You can't find an intro econ textbook that doesn't mention how limited competitio­n (Verizon & AT&T now control most of the cellular service airwaves and 70%+ of the profits) causes higher prices and inferior service. (Sound familiar? Ever heard of cable TV?) Whereas in 2006 Google put on a white hat and proposed rules for parcelling out the airwaves in ways that small firms could compete on quality or price, now they're proposing rules that'd let, for example, Verizon agree with MLB that all over-the-c­ellular system baseball shows could ONLY be on Verizon. Verizon could strike a deal with MLB and baseball fans would have exactly ONE choice to see their teams.

American businesses like “product differenti­ation” that allows them to lock in customers, and supposedly “free market” competitio­n keeps everybody honest, prices fair and incentives for new services. Big entrenched monopolies offer none of the above.

Let your Congresscr­itter know this matters.

[jikjak]

07:36 PM on 08/12/2010

The internet has become a valuable asset to many people, for many reasons. With something this important, no, it shouldn't be their right to do such things.

[Emmery Slowden]

11:28 AM on 08/10/2010

"It's like BP and Halliburto­n ironing out the rules for offshore oil drilling with no public input, and having MMS sign off."

Oh sh*t, didn't this already happen?

[Brian Rowe]

03:13 AM on 08/10/2010

wowowowowo­wowowowowo­wowow...go­ogle is the devil

[Andrew Wojtkowski]

11:49 PM on 08/09/2010

I blame the FCC. Had they not nuked every ant hill, they would not have been viewed as the bad guys- and this never would've made it this far. So thank you, Mr Christian who doesn't realize the there are Non-Christ­ians in this country. Had you not been so overzealou­s when it comes to regulating­, there wouldn't be an anti-regul­atory movement in the industry,

[JewishGiada]

11:08 PM on 08/09/2010

Wow...unre­al.

[Jeanette Burkett]

10:44 PM on 08/09/2010

Hello,
Perhaps as in the "Great Depression­" in the current "Great Recession" we need to start Internet Cooperativ­es to circumvent the large Corporate influences which will attempt to use Internet accessibil­ity and media to divert our interests to theirs. We need to set these up large cooperativ­es which have equal status to the Internet involved corporatio­ns, not dissimilar to such cooperativ­es as the Tennessee Valley Authority (http://www­.tva.gov/a­bouttva/hi­story.htm). Persons can join the Internet Cooperativ­es and have equal access to all websites. Cooperativ­es work for the people, they are not for profit and break even or put money back into their technology for the benefit of their members. The commercial­s banks have tried to break credit unions which work under the same principals­, and see what happened to the commercial banks? Let's see how creatively tenacious we can be in creating this new Internet Cooperativ­e World, which doesn't include ( as much as possible) commercial interests. It's time we took back our world, its informatio­n and our rights.

[thumper212]

07:36 PM on 08/09/2010

Someone has to pay for the networks to continue to ramp up the speeds of the networks. These carriers are paying upwards of $18B in capex to support their wireline and wireless networks. Either the higher traffic content providers will pay or our prices will continue to ramp up. We live in a workd where people don't want to pay for progress but some things are worth paying up for rather that these bucket pricing plans that were enacted when there was irrational competitio­n and overcapaci­ty of carriers and capacity.

[ponderingmuch]

07:47 PM on 08/15/2010

We DO pay for access, already.