EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Activists Pressure Google on Net Neutrality
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - A protest organized by MoveOn.org, Free Press and other advocacy groups angered by Google's recently proposed rules on governing Internet access drew about 70 activists to the online giant's Mountain View headquarters on Friday.
Stephen Rosenblum (right) of Palo Alto takes part in the protest Friday outside Google's Mountain View headquarters.(Photo: Lea Suzuki / The Chronicle) The animated group carried signs that read "Google Don't Be Evil,"
with devil horns and a pointed tail emerging from the company's name;
chanted slogans as creative as "hey hey, ho ho, corporate greed has got
to go"; and sang "democracy requires net neutrality" to the tune of "The
Battle Hymn of the Republic."
The gathering on Google's corporate campus was the latest example of a simmering backlash over an agreement announced this week between the company and Verizon to advance a set of federal rules that many say betray Google's earlier support for an open Internet.
The online search king and other Web businesses have long argued that Internet service providers should treat all legal Web content the same, providing users with unfettered access to the sites and services of their choosing, be they text news articles or network-clogging videos.
But the rules proposed by Google and Verizon included provisions that critics say contradict that position, in particular one that states wireless access providers wouldn't be subject to the same standards.
"It would look more like cable television, where Internet service providers and major content companies like Google decide which content gets priority and which content is important," said S. Derek Turner, research director at Free Press, in an interview Thursday.
Midway through the event Friday, organizers delivered what was said to be 300,000 petitions submitted online by people concerned about the proposal to Nicklas Lundblad, Google's head of public policy.
"The problem is this proposal does good things for Google and good things for Verizon, but it doesn't do good things for the American public," James Rucker, executive director of Color of Change, said to the crowd of assembled activists and reporters, after he held a short conversation with Lundblad.
Lundblad issued a statement later in the day.
"This is an important, complex issue that should be discussed," he said. "But let me be clear: Google remains a fierce supporter of the open Internet. We're not expecting everyone to agree with every aspect of our proposal, but we think ... that locking in key enforceable protections for consumers is preferable to no protection."
Google's security officers kept an eye on the event, but only stepped in occasionally to ensure that roadways weren't blocked.
The activists joined a number of organizations that have expressed concerns about the proposals, including public policy groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, academics such as Harvard Law School Professor Lawrence Lessig, and other Internet giants including Amazon and Facebook.
The Palo Alto social networking company, increasingly seen as a Google competitor, said in a statement this week: "Facebook continues to support the principles of net neutrality for both landline and wireless networks. Preserving an open Internet that is accessible to innovators - regardless of their size or wealth - will promote a vibrant and competitive marketplace."
Google has defended its actions throughout the week, describing it as a compromise necessary to ensure protections against the "worst forms of carrier discrimination against Internet traffic," in a blog post by Richard Whitt, the company's Washington telecom and media counsel.
"It's true that Google previously has advocated for certain openness safeguards to be applied in a similar fashion to what would be applied to wireline services," he wrote. "However, in the spirit of compromise, we have agreed to a proposal that allows this market to remain free from regulation for now, while Congress keeps a watchful eye."
One activist at the protest warned that these sorts of measures jeopardize Google's "Don't Be Evil" brand, which has been essential for users who entrust considerable amounts of their personal information to the company.
"Generally, I trust Google more than any company on the planet - until now," said Jonathan Steigman, 46, of Mountain View, who uses many of the company's products. "This could be Google jumping the shark, and it's very easy to move to (Microsoft's) Bing or other services."
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
12 Comments so far
Show AllThere is a HUGE misunderstanding on this topic, and let's just nip that bad boy right off, shall we?
Net neutrality is what we have now. NO company can decide what content you should be able to see or not. There is no additional charge for seeing any page or another on the entire web. What Comcast, Verizon and the rest want to do is to be able to charge EXTRA to web sites for decent speeds in providing you with those pages. This means that any big company can flood the ISP's with money and get THEIR pages to load quickly. Yours, as a private citizen or small company that can't pay their bribes, will get either very slow access or NONE.
What if Comcast decides that they don't want you to see any left wing information. They already do that with MSNBC, which you have to be at least mid tier on their paying schedule to receive. What if they decided that they don't want you to see CD, or Raw Story, or Huffington post? They could very easily set a few software switches, and you MIGHT get to see those sites if you waited long enough.
This is NOT gov't control, this is gov't STOPPING big business from taking your right to have your say away from you. We have net neutrality now, and it works pretty well. Protect it, or lose what little actual freedom and equality we have left in this country.
If you would rather trade gov't control (which you CAN make a difference to) for corporate control (which you can't), then be against it. But to do so is to be against your own freedom, liberty and equality. And to let someone else take that away from you so they can make more money is just plain pathetic and despicable.
Now, let the Faux Noise lovers chime in and tell me how I'm wrong here. I can't wait for the frustrated laughter.
Well not knowing what Faux Noise lovers are I have to say you are absolutely correct in your assessment of the situation. If you mean by noise lovers Capitalist greed heads that are continually looking for ways to squeeze another dime of two from the populace I get that.
Faux Noise lovers are those who watch and believe Fox News. They have been going around telling their listeners and viewers that net neutrality is a gov't takeover of their rights when it's exactly the opposite. It would be charitable to say they are just misguided and don't know what they are talking about, but that would just be foolish. They know quite well what they are doing, and it's purely so the rich will get richer and we will have nowhere to even talk about it. They also don't like the fairness doctrine, because that actually helped EDUCATE people as to both sides of an argument. The one thing they DON'T want is an educated populace. They have been dumbing everything down to the lowest common denominator for 3 decades now, and this is what they hope will kill off the ability of the American people to draw any logical conclusions whatsoever.
Your excellent comment points out why the issue of net neutrality should be a "no brainer" for a country which considers itself based on democratic principles and "all men are created equal". If we lose net neutrality, we will have shown to the rest of the world that a. we do not believe in democracy, or b. that we do have a "plutocracy", or both. At that point, why should another country "believe" the false premise that we are invading to "bring about democratic principles" to a country when WE don't even have them.
I've created a family Blog that has been posted online for the past five years. It's a good means of keeping up with the activities of family members who live all across the country. It has also served as a very convenient method to keep our family in immediate contact with each other through private Blog conversations, picture sharing, etc.
I pay iPowerWeb $110.00/yr. to host our website - upload and store our online content. The Blog is quickly accessible 24/7 all year around.
If Google decides that the family can no longer conveniently and quickly access and communicate through our website at any time during the day (as we do now), there would no longer be any reason to pay $110.00 to PowerWeb for hosting the website. We would simply revert to using e-mail to stay in contact.
I would think that iPowerWeb and other companies like them, who perform similar services for hundreds of thousands of bloggers and individuals, would HAVE A LOT TO SAY about Google losing a major source of their income for them!!!
I just love how greedy people will lie, steal and cheat to take over control of publicly funded and researched ideas/programs and say that it is just part of the "free-market" system. My ass! The airwaves that are owned by the public were given away to a handful of corporations (the last BIG PUBLIC GIVE-A-WAY) in 1996 which wasn't even a public debate/discussion in Washington....nope...it was just a fight over how many corporations would get their greedy/putrid hands on our property to control it. I'm referring to the Telecommunications Act that GAVE AWAY the digital spectrum. If our elected leaders had been operating in the best interest of the public (who own the damn airwaves) we would have been able to net billions of dollars from the rich executives at companies like GE, Disney and Fux to pay for MEDICARE FOR ALL. But noooo.....capitalism involves stealing and plundering at the expense of people and the environment. Free Market....my ass!
Net Neutrality is a big issue and losing it is dangerous to our society. If you haven't already, sign petitions, contribute to organizations fighting for net neutrality, or do something.
I saw a posting somewhere about dumping everything related to these companies on Sept. 1st...I couldn't wait that long and did it daze ago...the market place is too big for bullies...let them go by the way-side like the beta video format...a fading memory in my mind...
This is idiotic.
A deal between Google and Verizon to ensure traffic prioritization is not a threat to anyone's freedom of speech, or a violation of net neutrality (at least, not anymore than the existing practice of traffic shaping).
The real problem (that comparative market pressure may not be enough to counteract the potentially degraded service that traffic shaping may cause during high traffic times) is caused by the fact that only two companies own the rights to service hardwired internet in most areas - though, with the advent of near-wired-speed wireless internet services over the cell networks, that may not even matter.
Of course, the supposition that Google is "being evil" is ludicrous; they are positioning themselves to be able to give their customers (i.e., everyone) uninterrupted service for their most popular products. They are paying out the nose for the privileged of being first in line to get traffic through for the rare event of a properly overloaded network. Protesting Google, in this event, is condemnably stupid.
Overall, this is a competition issue best solved by breaking apart the major internet carriers (Comcast and Verizon), not a practices issue best solved by regulation of what is still a well self-regulated market.
Weird how no one ever seems to suggest that.
"Overall, this is a competition issue best solved by" ... redefining internet providers as common carriers.
"to give their customers (i.e., everyone) uninterrupted service for their most popular products.
Or rather the products that they have been paid to deliver. This grants the high-end commercial product a near-monopoly resembling what they have had in commercial news, radio, and television.
You can count their customers as everybody minus one.
The internet is the thread we WERE hanging by to oppose fascism.
Thank god Obama will save us.