The first word we heard about the Google-Verizon deal was that they would keep basic net neutrality protections for computer-based Web browsing, but not extend it to mobile devices. But the latest news is that the deal would put tiers on the entire Internet.
Google and Verizon, two leading players in Internet service and content, are nearing an agreement that 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 charges could be paid by companies, like YouTube, owned by Google, for example, to Verizon, one of the nation’s leading Internet service providers, to ensure that its content received priority as it made its way to consumers. The agreement could eventually lead to higher charges for Internet users.
Such an agreement could overthrow a once-sacred tenet of Internet policy known as net neutrality, in which no form of content is favored over another. In its place, consumers could soon see a new, tiered system, which, like cable television, imposes higher costs for premium levels of service.
This is the biggest fear that net neutrality supporters have. Right now, there’s basically a gentlemen’s agreement in place on the Web that no content gets special access or privileges. Congress and the proper regulatory agencies never codified the rule, but there were enough competing interests that it stayed in place. But with Google holding such a large section of the Web in its hands – and Verizon one of the few major players on the telecom side – it was only a matter of time before a deal like this took shape. And it’ll beget more deals, no doubt.
Josh Silver is right: this is the end of the Internet as we 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.
As Silver said, before long all radio, television, phone and other services could go through an Internet connection, meaning that powerful interests will be in a position to pick winners and losers throughout practically all forms of communication.
Save the Internet and groups like it have been outmaneuvered by big business. They never caused a critical mass to pressure Congress after the initial spike of activity around net neutrality. They never caused the FCC one ounce of pain. They just haven’t been aggressive enough. And as a result, the Internet is being sold and time is running out. Al Franken, who warned of this a couple weeks ago in Las Vegas at Netroots Nation, has a petition out, but it’s going to take a lot more than petitions.
Oh, and screw Google.
UPDATE: For their part, Google is publicly denying this, saying “We remain committed to an open internet.” But Google CEO Eric Schmidt seemed to confirm something yesterday.
UPDATE II: Ed Markey, net neutrality’s leading champion in Congress, is out with a statement:
“The potential deal between two broadband behemoths underscores the need for the FCC to act quickly to protect the free and open Internet. In the absence of such action, it’s increasingly clear that cozy cooperation between communications colossi will reign on the Internet. No one should be surprised that such companies will seek to slant the playing field in their favor, a result that will stifle the next generation of Internet innovators and short-circuit the economic benefits needed to power our economy in the 21st century. It is time for the FCC to step in to protect consumers, innovation, and fair competition.”




29 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Too late for Google and Verizon to buy the internet. Hackers already feel they own it.
Start monetizing it and watch WW III break out.
Google, once a sanctimonius sanctuary of geeks, has already proved its vulnerability and appealed to the government for help in defending itself.
How many more large companies have been hacked we will never know because they don’t admit it.
it is sad to watch good ideas prostituted for money. But the larger issue is that the internet is a core utility. Never a good idea to encourage slash & burn when doing the right thing will allow you to live in peace as opposed to pieces.
A little further clarification…
The following comments relate to the internet ambiance of the late ’90.
Back then, I used to design firewall solutions for business. I developed the skill set in self-defense after my personal account was hacked early in the decade.
At that time, hackers came in 2 varieties. The first, and by and large the majority, were curious. The second, a very small minority, were malicious.
Either variety could be roused to vengeance.
The #2′s who found your website offensive would deface it for fun. The #1′s just liked to look around. Both types usually left a back door because the one thing neither group likes is to be shut out.
There is a #3 group today who does it for profit and a cottage industry of botnet contractors who serves its needs because the #3 are more about crime and less about hacking skill.
My warning is based on my own experience. I ratted one of the #1′s out because I found him on my computer w/o my permission. Both groups joined in tormenting me for a period of months.
I received numerous calls from evangelicals asking me:
“Are you saved?!”
My personal writing was posted to BB all over the internet. Not exactly my idea of flattering publishing.
The contents of my hard drive were downloaded and parroted back to me at various intervals such as:
“Gutentach, Dr. Finck!”
It’s the #2′s you have to fear. But if the freedom of the internet is imperiled, there will be consequences.
Many hackers see the internet as their home. They will defend it the same way you would yours.
also New York Times’ Story is Mistaken says Verizon:
If Congress and the FCC don’t respond quickly, and then do so desultorily, the googlemeister and its telecoms partners will claim the feds are taking “their” private property without just compensation.
Once again the corporations rip off consumers after ripping off the government
I didn’t know they owned the internet.
Lmao!
“”We have a president who promised to “take a back seat to no one on Net Neutrality” yet remains silent.”
And there lies the problem. What Obama wants, Obama gets. Stop listening to what he says and watch what he does.”
The “liberal lion” Alan Grayson
Alan Grayson Sides With Telecoms On Net Neutrality
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/05/alan-grayson-sides-with-t_n_672313.html
count Obama in as well.
“Both Big Government and RedState.com gleefully noted that Grayson employs Matt Stoller, a former prominent blogger and leading net neutrality advocate.”
So where is the bill from Markey to enshrine net neutrality in law?
Ahh…
I thought so. More bark with no bite.
Taxpayers paid for the net and corp. takes it over for free and then charges for the service. Yep, just more change I can believe in. I hope everyone on the fcc panel get a good job after leaving office:(
If Grayson can get it done, he is saying he is strong for net nut. Hope he knows what he is doing:
”
I say in the letter that I support the policy of net neutrality. I don’t know how I could be more explicit than that,” he told HuffPost. “There is a question, though, of how to reach that conclusion, and it’s a legitimate question. My own feeling is that we should not allow a matter like this to be resolved by regulation, because regulations can be changed very easily. We saw this all the time with the Bush administration. I think it is preferable to have the principle of net neutrality enshrined in statute.”
”
- Grayson
Exactly.
” I think it is preferable to have the principle of net neutrality enshrined in statute.”
Another issue on which the dems will always come up one vote short.
OT
Well, looks like we have our newest addition to the SCOTUS.
Oh man that’s funny.
I wonder if that’s real or photoshopped??
The look on the guy the arrow is pointing at almost makes it look real. He seems to be looking right at the sign with an incredulous look on his face. LOL.
From boing boing they also have two stories saying that this deal is not true. See the updates.
I think we might not want to give the NYTimes the final word on this.
http://m.boingboing.net/2010/08/05/report-google-and-ve.html
Nevermind, gotta be photoshopped.
Should’ve known better.
Sometimes (often/all the time) I’m an idiot.
Still funny though!!
Google is committed to an open Internet like Obama is committed to equality for gays.
I think it’s bound to be real. Look at the light sources on both men. It’s real or it’s expertly done.
Again, I believe that it’s real. The lighting is identical. Look at it closely, especially in the areas where their shoes meet the pavement.
Bullshit. More kabuki sellout from another faux Dem. Folded on HCR, folding on net neutrality.
Same with Markey and Franken. All talk, no action. Have any of the three of them introduced net neutrality bills in Congress?
Yeah, I didn’t think so.
exactly!
did anyone really think that greed would not take over.
GM was making billions of dollars in profits years ago and still was looking for cheaper wages even if it meant outsourcing and laying off their own workers which they never liked. the union thing.
in a capitalist system money talks. greed overwhelms the minds of its citizens.
the purer the form of capitalism the faster it self destructs into third world status.
media will not tell you these things for a very good reason.
spend some time thinking about that and you will understand why. $$$$$
if you think capitalism is designed for the middle class you know little about the capitalist agenda. profits over people always.
now we had a huge middle class in america. why is that?
we were the only game in town so to speak after world war two.
and thank roosevelt for putting the brakes on capitalism.
thank reagan for taking the brakes off.
also the rest of the industrialized was bombed out.
the end is near but we still know how to make wars and movies and hamburgers.
In an embarrassing call to action, CREDO claims:
And they want folks to “Call him today and tell him not cave on net neutrality.” He is doing just what his overlords, including Obama, want him to do.
the ownership society now belongs to the corporations and the have mores. we can always thank the American voter who consistently voted Republican for so long. i personally think St. Ronnie was their best spokesman, though Palin is not far behind.
to see stupidity and willful ignorance is something to behold, almost impossible to stomach though.
This truly is a “special” age of the American republic’s demise. we are witnessing the speedy takeover of the American society by the Village/Elite. just like Weimar Germany.
CREDO is nothing but bullshit.A farce.
Wouldn’t the destruction of net neutrality be great?
Imagine BP being able to pay ISPs to limit speeds of people who criticize them and limit access to their webpages. Imagine BP having the power to silence any news site that criticizes them.
BP would make the oil spill disappear because noone would be able to ****ing hear about it!!!!