Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
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 Haliburton 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."
This post was originally published by The Huffington Post.



28 Comments so far
Show AllThe push for total media control in this Orwellian world.
I just heard on the Nightly Business report that Verizon and Google are now denying that they are in talks to end net neutrality. So well see what happens
Why should the internet be any different? They did it with radio, TV, and the press when they found them a bit too 'democratic' for their tastes.
Neutrality = Socialism = Anything a corporation can't skim money from.
It is sad that Google, originally a stunningly brilliant product of IT geniuses who wanted it used for social good, has joined the venal corporate world. Recently Google has been complicit in quasi-legal data gathering, and is now a party to corporate manipulation where the flow of information may be effectively blocked by the highest bidder. They are sitting on a f**kin gold mine, to use the words of Rob Blagojevich as he hoped to cash in by selling off another aspect of democracy.
Is the idea of net neutrality completely dead, or is there any way to keep the internet open? Can there be ANY limitations on what's for sale? Can there be any guarantees of a percentage of bandwidth for the general public? Any life whatsoever at the FCC, the legislature, the courts? Is there some old civil servant deep in his office cave who has a faint distant recollection of rules for network fairness? Is there a Harry Tuttle out there who can devise a workaround?
Paper cups and string are still available. Carrier pigeons too.
Joe
I think once a company like Google gets large enough, they loose their ability for social good because of the management they attract. Once big salaries are available they attract the sharks, the rats, the scum.
Your comment on carrier pigeons reminded me of a story I heard on NPR about a year ago. Some African country was getting read to upgrade their internet because it was so slow. But before the upgrade they tried a test where they transferred something like a 4 gig using their internet to some location x number of miles away. As they started the transfer they put the same file on a memory stick, tied it a carrier pigeon, and let the pigeon fly to the same location.
The file that went by carrier pigeon got there first. For more info Im sure you could Google it...
Agreed! Once you're "too big to fail," you're usually too big to care about business ethics.
I don't think business and ethics are necessarily incompatible, but I generally believe that big businesses owned by external shareholders are almost always at least somewhat corrupt. I'm not a fan of most labor unions either, which in my experience are about bureaucracy, conformity/mediocrity, and some whining about being oppressed ordinary people. If you think of yourself as oppressed, you definitely will be. Also, just because one doesn't have a six-figure or higher income doesn't mean one is "ordinary." Some of the most ordinary (boring) people one meets are upper-middle-class suburbanites.
A better economic system would blend capitalism with fairness:
1.) Companies would ideally be 100% employee-owned, and at least 51% employee-owned to prevent corporate takeovers. From the custodian to the CEO, share distribution would be equal.
2.) The highest-paid person in the company would earn no more than 10-20 times the paycheck of the lowest-paid person.
I realize most of this post is somewhat offtopic, and hereby apologize.
Unfortunately, neither the GWB regime nor the BP disaster became a tipping point for the majority of Americans. But Net Neutrality might!
Before Google, there was a healthy competition of other search engines. Google's monopoly on search engines changed all that. Progressives could change that but they're not organized.
A progressive version of netroots would be a start. How about dating services for progressives? I came across dating services for Democrats and Republican conservatives. Why nothing to help progressives grow? Sorry to repeat myself but my last ex-gf herself a progressive just like most everyone here showed me how difficult it is to date a progressive.
clusty.com (originally vivisimo.com), the first search engine to incorporate clustering technology, was great until Vivisimo sold its exclusive technology and soul a few months ago for 5+ million and became yippy.com, a search engine targeted toward children of right-wing parents. For fun, my spouse and I ran several searches involving the word "sex," and were denied results every time: a child trying to write a biology report about the reproduction of wild animals wouldn't get anywhere!
Since losing clusty.com I have used ixquick.com, a European-based search engine that at least claims to be "the world's most private."
http://ixquick.com/
Google is not the only search engine in the world; other (often better) search engines exist. Google does not deserve all the use it receives, and CERTAINLY did not deserve to become a verb.
I suspect that many people use Google because they are operating on default settings in their own brains, the same settings that do not allow them to shop at independent businesses or vote for third-party candidates.
Thanks nano. I'll give ixquick a try. I think we USAns have been convinced that it's Google or nothing.
I just wonder how this will play out on a world wide basis. Some countries are more committed to "Net Neutrality".
the internet is temporary...it must be...
I wondered how long something as free and good as the Internet could last. Maybe about as long as our "democracy" in a system where multinational corporations buy everything out.
AMEN !! to all earlier comments.
To GWNorth ... Japan and most of Europe are Way-ay-ay more committed to net neutrality than here in the USA, where the corporate control of the central government is in its heyday.
We taught the principles of modern democracy to the world through the design and implementation of our Constitution; but we do not seem to be able to live up to Ben Franklin's challenge to "keep it."
It will be a strange world indeed. If one looks at "The State" of the USA today, it a country where a great number of people absolutely BELIEVE they have the Worlds best health care system, best Justice system, best and most representative Government and are the free of all the "Ills" of those "Socialists" the world over.
"Liberty and Freedom" only exist in the USA to this type.
What will happen when after a decades time they have a Closed Internet like a China and the rest of the World is allowed free and open access?
Talk about "dumbing down" a people.
Again we see still another Obama agency, this time the FCC, attempting to find "compromise" between competing positions. The rest of the world knows that you are either neutral or you are not. The "compromise" point in this case is where you are when you are just a little bit pregnant.
We have a president who promised to "take a back seat to no one on Net Neutrality" yet remains silent.
Ditto Alan Grayson (apparently).
Maybe the end of the Internet will force progressives to organize?
What is a progressive?
Based on my last ex-gf and most people here, I take it to mean a solid left compared a liberal that waffles. Nothing wrong with it but if they're not organizing beyond the forums, then how will most of us outsiders be able to express our support for progressive values worth supporting? You got to get beyond the forums and the Internet and organize. How it's done remains to be seen but nothing beats face to face interaction.
Okay, a progessive is a solid lefty (I don't necessarily agree, but we'll leave that for the moment.)
So, what's a 'lefty'? What does it mean to be a lefty/progressive? What attributes does a lefty/progressive have that a righty have? All you've done is replaced one word you can't define (progressive) with another (lefty).
Lefties and righties are not two global cults, but adherents to a particular way things are organized.
And please stop whining about your ex. It's not her fault you're who you are. If your self-esteem is based on how a particular 'other' sees you, you're screwed anyway. Rise above, friend, rise above.
I am what most would describe as a recovering conservative. I have gotten attacted to a lot of progressive ideas and maybe those and some good conservative values could be put together and worked out. I don't know.
Maybe it will make this impossible. I think that's the goal.
Where's big brother/sister when you actually need them.FCC Abandons Net Neutrality Compromise
Federal regulators are abandoning efforts to negotiate a compromise on so-called "network neutrality" rules
http://www.newslook.com/videos/237057-fcc-abandons-net-neutrality-compromise?autoplay=true
Thank you!
Meanwhile NPR runs a story titled "Google and Verizon seeking net neutrality deal" and I think, wow! Verizon wants net neutrality? Then the story unfolds and I say WTF! This title should have been "Google and Verizon seek deal to end net neutrality".
Of course, now I see what's going on. Google and Verizon are heralding this rape as a "net neutrality deal" so the public hears what it wants to, breathes a sigh of relief, and gullible hacks at NPR believe the headline they've been fed!
I don't get it either, how these corporate lice are allowed to do this. Like Josh Silver, I'm saying FCC? Obama?
If the US House Speaker really favors net neutrality all she has to do is put out word to have any slime ball legislation to get rid of net neutrality not scheduled and even have it buried in a committee she knows will vote it down, thus saving us all the problem of dealing with this nightmare. That's unless the powers of this speaker have changed, and I've seen nothing to say that's happened. The house speaker has had this power historically.
AD