Yesterday, 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.
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.
Follow Marvin Ammori on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Marvin_Ammori
Lowell Peterson: Verizon and Google: The Deal of the Titans
This is just one of many comments posted to the FCC by carriers talking about how they "limited access" in an effort to increase speeds for the rest of the network (Supposedly). I would post more of them, as I have read some, but there are far too many comments on this subject to sort through while at work.
Really what happened is that they controlled access to sites they did not want people to use. This is why there has to be FCC control of broadband services.
Feel free (I encourage you to do so) to post your own comment/read the comments posted in this section to get a better understanding of what is actually going on.
The fact is, the empirical peer-reviewed evidence shows, time and again, that the Internet is thriving with or without this net neutrality bullshit. The corporations will not "take over the Internet" or "make a two-tiered system." All this does is help certain webmasters and content providers get a leg up. And if you're a newbie, that could be a boon.
Why anyone thinks a big wealthy company with recognition like Google would take advantage of the deal is beyond me. THEY DON'T NEED IT! It's a bullshit hypothetical, fearmongering scenario. Net neutrality advocates are playing on people's fears and anti-corporation bias.
Want an "internet"...just set up your own mesh network.
1) Some people live in the boonies where there is only one way to obtain Internet service. So if 1 provider is the only provider in your area, getting all indignant when they muddle your Internet use will help you nadda, zippo, ..
2) when purchasing a service, nothing will force the service provider to tell you exactly what they are blocking or slowing .. and you just won't see blogs or whatever they block when you do a search.
3) No net neutrality means the Internet is going to be like a yellow pages telephone book. Pay to play or else. You will NOT get what you want without paying. Have you tried to find out someone's phone number over the Internet? pay up. You will not only pay for access, you will pay if you want to put any content up for others to see, and may pay again for the rights to obtain certain types of content. Want to see blogs? $10 a month more. mapquest - $3/month more.
THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF THE INTERNET GOES AWAY ONCE net neutrality disappears.
2) I don't see blogs when I do a search now.
3) Your full of it. Any company that tried to do that would go out of business. Actually I remember when the internet was pay to play. That was in the mid 90s.Your "vision" of the internet in the future to me reveals a poor understanding of the technology behind how the net works.
Any company that tries to censor traffic will lose TONs of customers. However I do know of an organization that doesn't care about profits that would love to have the power to regulate and censor the internet. The FCC. Giving government the power to regulate the internet is a dream come true for social conservatives and statist liberals.
Don't believe the dogma on net neutrality. It is a solution to a non existent problem.
Non-existent problem? Not quite.
Also, the government has already regulated the internet, and still does for any dial up service. If you put your paranoia aside for a moment, you would see why this is key.
The colors represent who each router is registered to.
Red is Verizon;
Blue AT&T;
Yellow Qwest;
Ggreen is major backbone players like Level 3 and Sprint Nextel;
Black is the entire cable industry put together;
Gray is everyone else, from small telecommunications companies to large international players who only have a small presence in the U.S.
http://advice.cio.com/themes/CIO.com/cache/Internet_map_labels_0.pdf
The communications corporations are some of the biggest campaign donors in America and as such have managed to bribe enough legislators to approve their take over of the internet; the last glimmering hope for a return to a republic gone in a blizzard of bribe money!!!
Just like the cable company is mine right now.
It is not giving favored treatment over the net, just to your wireless connection.
You can switch providers.
I'm in favor of "open" systems, but this is not much worse than iPhone's only being supported by AT&T. It's controlling your access point to the Internet, not the network itself. That may be the same thing to the user on that access point, but from a legal point of view it's very different.
Would you think that tier 1 networks who pass each others traffic free of charge, yet charge smaller ISPs to pay rent, actually operates as a self-contained system in itself? Much like AOL or Compuserve in the mid 90s. It's almost as if they merged their netoworks and thier interests without merging their companies (to keep the illusion of competition). A system too large and 'in place' to simply start over. This is what I get nervous about.
"This is vastly different from cable. Cable is a closed system, it can offer you whatever tiered programming it chooses, and you can choose to pay different prices for that programming. But you have a CHOICE. You can choose to simply access the free, over-the-air programming on public airwaves WITHOUT cable."
A public option! That's exactly what's missing from this equation. Not an alternative within the private industry, but an alternative from the private industry. This is also true, comparing cell phone, cable, and internet industries can get complicated at times because they have different foundations.
I'll be your first fan.
I was not comparing cable TV, I was comparing a cable modem. I'm connecting to the Internet, and all sites are treated equally, and they always will be regardless of what Verizon does. Only if Time Warner strikes a similar deal can I be affected.
I don't like the idea, but it is not monopolistic, no more so than cell phones are. There's a worldwide phone net in the same sense as the Internet, you can call anybody in the world no matter what their carrier, land or cell, and you can access from all sorts of cell carriers: Verizon, AT&T, etc. Those on the same network get special treatment. I can call other Verizon users for free, for example.
That's almost exactly what you have here: Verizon is your wireless connection to the Internet. You only need them to get to the Internet if you choose them, or if nothing else in the area is offered.
This is not a takeover of the Internet, period. It may not be great but it is not a monopolistic action, and the FCC is legally correct to allow it.
That comparison to Apple is interesting. Actually when I saw that "Verizon mobile computer" with the google apps, the first thing I thought of was AT&T/Iphone. I hate that relationship, and don't want that for the internet. I see what you are trying to say though, I think. Iphone went exclusive with AT&T, the world didn't end. There was still plenty of competition, so it's not the end of the internet(as we know it) as some people are claiming. If that's what your saying, then you've given me some food for thought for a bit. Any further clarification you want to give is appreciated.
The important thing is to realize it only affects those who access the Internet through Verizon: their wireless and presumably also their fiber optic network (Fios). I don't use either, this will never affect me unless I do.
This is not special treatment on the Internet, it's special treatment only at the very end of the connection, and only if you are connecting using Verizon. Use anybody else, this will make no difference to you. I am using a cable modem to connect right now; Verizon cannot change the speed of my access to any site, including this one.
Do we just give up? Or do we stand up? In my view we must do something.
I'd like to see Americans should together against a major corporation over this issue. Possibly we could try and BANKRUPT a major American corporation that is trying to steal the internet. I don't mean just boycott. I mean band together as Americans and simply refuse to ever deal with corporation X ever again no matter what. That would apply to any company that tried to buy up the assets of the offending company. Drive it and all its subsidiaries out of business forever.
That might get their attention. It'd at least be an interesting web-site until it's blocked.
As long as most customers want going online to feel like browsing Barnes & Noble, net neutrality will gain no traction--and that is what most customers want. I think the battle has already been lost, frankly--sometime around the beginning of 2009 I noticed big changes starting, and not for the better.
i spent hours on the phone, i asked to have my phone and all my premium channels cut off.... the next day they were.... but NO BILL REDUCTION.... this went on for 3 months.....
finally after much testing of my sanity, and months of being jerked around, the bill came back at 150 a month.....
i use someone else's wireless connection now.... and netflix.
time warner is REALLY hurting now... cause of people like me. verizon and google would defnitely feel a pinch if there were enough momentum for them to feel the screws.
I'll finish the quote because I love it...not sure if it's exactly correct...
If we don't protect Net Neutrality, how long do you think it will take before BP/Halliburton/ Wal- Mart/Fox/ Domino's Pizza starts favoring its content over everyone else's?"
Bravo for being so amusing.