Verizon has a love-hate relationship with Net Neutrality. The company professes its love of the open Internet, but then tries to smother it with a pillow in the middle of the night.
The company's strained relationship with openness was evident yesterday when Verizon asked a federal appeals court to overturn an extremely weak Federal Communications Commission rule protecting Net Neutrality -- the principle that guarantees Internet users' the right to go where they want and do what they choose online.
Ironically, the rule in question, adopted by the FCC just last month, was modeled after a vastly unpopular "policy framework" drafted by Verizon and Google attorneys in August. (Nate Anderson of ArsTechnica lays out these similarities in graphic detail).
So why, then, is Verizon now challenging a rule that the FCC crafted to appease, well, Verizon?
Apparently, the company wants us to believe that its devotion to the open Internet is absolute, and that it simply doesn't require pesky rules to stay honest.
"Verizon has long been committed to preserving an open Internet and meeting the needs of our customers," said Michael Glover, its deputy general counsel, in a statement yesterday. He added, however, that the company's legal challenge was in opposition to the idea that the FCC be given any authority to test this commitment.
Like Comcast before it, Verizon is arguing that we simply need to trust that it will keep its promises and protect the Internet's democratic nature.
It's the same kind of trust that BP asked for when the oil company spent millions to lobby Washington for regulatory leniency in advance of last April's Deepwater Horizon disaster.
It's the same kind of trust that Goldman Sachs wanted when it spent millions to lobby Washington for regulatory leniency in advance of the 2008 mortgage meltdown.
In retrospect, it's crazy to think that this spin still finds an audience in Washington. But Verizon is actually arguing that Internet access, an essential pathway to economic growth and opportunity for millions of people, should be left entirely to its discretion, free from any checks against the type of blocking and discrimination that many Internet providers have talked about implementing.
In a widely reported legal contortion, Verizon's attorneys based the company's appeal on the notion that the FCC order changes the terms of its existing wireless spectrum licenses. These sorts of license appeals must be heard in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the same court that in April ruled that the FCC had overstepped its authority when it sanctioned Comcast for blocking legal file-sharing applications. This circuit is thought to be the most industry-friendly of the 11 circuit courts of appeal, according to Andrew Schwartzman of Media Access Project.
Trust them.
There's a simple reason we create regulatory public policy, and all of Verizon's claims shouldn't persuade the court or the FCC otherwise. It's this: The only thing you can trust about Verizon is that it seeks to boost its bottom line and serve shareholders by any means possible. That's the nature of corporations. And naturally, the public shouldn't expect corporations like Verizon to put our best interests first.
Sound public policy is designed for that role -- to make corporations behave in ways that don't harm the rest of us without driving them out of business.
What will keep Verizon honest and committed to an open Internet are clear rules of the road and a real watchdog to enforce them.
Follow Timothy Karr on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TimKarr
Arianna Huffington: Sunday Roundup
At least we would be spared all the masquerading hype and distruths.
There is no free market in internet access or anything close to it. Net neutrality is no positive, as it only imposes even more regulations which will lead to further cartelization of the industry. If you want more businesses of a certain type you have to leave room for diversification, and net neutrality limits the diversity of providers. There's only so many different ways to differentiate your ISP from someone elses ISP.
Having municipalities pay for the networks is not a solution, this simply makes tax payers pay the costs, many of whom have no interest in the network, so you are using others money for something from which they will not benefit. People should pay for what they want and not force others to pay for it.
We've done this with roads for centuries and only the most over-the-top libertarians would call that "socialism". Indeed, people can easily see that it would be a very bad idea for UPS or any private entity to own all the roads and make all the rules. If that's not obvious, study the history of the railroads in the 19th century.
A reasonable alternative to municipal ownership of the fiber plant would be private ownership by a regulated common carrier banned from end-user services, either directly or through a subsidiary. That restriction is crucial; the FCC allowed the telephone companies to sell DSL on an "arms length" basis, and that turned out to be a huge mistake.
I think government has poorly managed roads. A monopoly on the production and maintenance of roads has many problems. http://mises.org/daily/3416
Ideally, municipalities should deploy "dark fiber" networks just as they now build and maintain roads. The actual service would come from commercial companies leasing non-exclusive access, just as taxi and trucking companies now pay to use the roads and compete with each other.
But whenever an enlightened town tries this, the Verizons and AT&Ts scream "socialism!" and run to the state house to outlaw it. What are they so afraid of?
They also should have no voice in our government, because there is nothing a business can be trusted to do with a voice in government except damage that government to generate profit.
"The only thing you can trust about Verizon is that it seeks to boost its bottom line and serve shareholders by any means possible. That's the nature of corporations. And naturally, the public shouldn't expect corporations like Verizon to put our best interests first."
AMEN. And because the Supreme Court has recently ruled that corporations are also people, the public also should NOT expect Chief Justice John Roberts and his fellow rightwingers (Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy) to consistently put OUR best interests first.
'Nuff said.
Thing is, we as a country are too busy yelling "liberal" and "republican" at each other to stop things like this, and that's how they like it. Divide and conquer.
I'm sure it'll fall on deaf ears here at huffington though, as everyone seems so blinded by party loyalty on here they can't even see the real enemies, or are just too ignorant to connect the dots..
WAKE UP SHEOPLE! Internet 2 is coming fast.
Jeff Bewkes (Chairman & CEO of Time Warner)
Bob Iger (Chairman & CEO of Disney)
Rupert Murdoch (Chairman & CEO of News Corporation)
Sumner Redstone (Chairman & majority stockholder of Viacom & CBS Corporation)
Jeff Immelt (Chairman & CEO of General Electric)
Let's just trust the criminals in jail. That way we can just let them all go and save millions.
There is never been, nor never will be a phone company that can be trusted. Money is at the base of ALL decisions these companies make. As long as we remember this and regulate for the consumer, we are okay...but never, ever trust them.
http://mediafreedom.org/2011/01/as-expected-verizon-appeals-fccs-net-neutrality-order/
Basically, net neutrality is when an internet provider says, "I will handle everyone's traffic equally."
What we're seeing is businesses getting the bright idea to say, "Hey, if you pay me extra, I'll give your traffic a little... boost." bribery on the internet. Or, worse, "Hey, pay me extra or I'll dump your traffic," blackmail on the internet.
These things are unethical and should be illegal - but they're _profitable_, so businesses absolutely will do them (and have started to already) unless they are stopped by the force of law.