Google and Verizon Lobby to End Net Neutrality

Google’s Plans to Take Over the Internet Exposed!

August 21, 2010

Infowars.com - Google’s agreement with Verizon to speed certain Internet content to users opens the door to the complete sterilization of the world wide web as a force for political change. Under Google’s takeover plan, the Internet will closely resemble cable TV, independent voices will be silenced and the entire Internet will be bought up by transnational media giants.

Are Google and Verizon Trying to Choke the Net Too Early?

August 11, 2010

Wall Street Cheat Sheet - The Information Age is hardly out of the womb. It’s still gasping for first breaths while we clean it off to get a better look.

However, many people and businesses act as if the Information Age is ready for Long Term Care Insurance. Don’t buy what they’re selling.

Recently, Google (GOOG) and Verizon (VZ) started lobbying to end net neutrality. Essentially, they want to create multiple lanes of information traffic, and each lane will have different delivery speeds (see their clever loophole below). This is great for the companies because they want to better price discriminate among their customers. This is horrible for the Internet (in current form) because we have no idea how badly we will choke information and innovation if we cut the cloth this early in the game.

To be clear, Wired notes:

“In the here and now the proposal does not include the paid prioritization of one company’s traffic over another — a victory for net neutrality proponents. But it does call for so-called “fast lanes” ISPs have been clamoring for in ways even the two companies could not foresee, according to both Google President Eric Schmidt and Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg …

In other words, to avoid creating tiered access on the internet and dealing with associated governmental red tape, Google and Verizon have proposed creating a second, paid-access-only internet — and mobile networks are exempt from the proposal, so the concept of net neutrality wouldn’t necessarily apply there.”

Seems to me we’ll end up with a super-slick and efficient internet which will cost users a pretty penny, while the public internet turns into a neglected ghetto. Think: cable TV versus public access TV.

While there may be extremely good reasons to create different quality internets in the future, we are simply not there yet. The internet has not yet matured to the point where we can unanimously say, “This content needs special privileges and will have no impact on small businesses, job creation, innovation, commerce, information access, etc.”

Moreover, the Internet is so important to the future of humanity, this is not the time to allow corporate entities to start jockeying for control. Sovereign states need to protect the commons so we don’t slowly start slipping down the slope toward a civilization in which a handful of elite for-profit companies exert unnecessary control over information.

Think that sounds silly? Take a second to ponder how financial services companies toppled the global economy and oil companies have thwarted attempts to diversify toward cleaner/safer energy sources.

Let’s all relax and put down the proverbial guns. There is no rush to make huge decisions about privatizing the internet. Google and Verizon are getting plenty of great tax breaks and subsidies through government programs. They can hold their horses for much longer.

Bye-bye, Mobile Internet: Verizon, AT&T, Others Hold Secret Net Neutrality Talks

August 20, 2010

BNET - If you thought that the Internet broadband plan — which should have been called the net DMZ plan — from Google (GOOG) and Verizon (VZ) was bad news, it looks like things are about to get worse. Telecom lobbyists are reportedly holding secret meetings in Washington, D.C. right now to discuss the Internet, broadband, and net neutrality.

No good will come of this, because it’s an inside group that excludes not only consumer advocates, but also the Federal Communications Commission. Given that the Supreme Court recently stripped any limitations on corporate contributions to political campaigns and that we face a hot election year, we have the recipe for a communications coup de take-what-we-give-you. But this is far bigger than what consumers may or may not have to pay. It comes down to whether the carriers will be able to control wireless data traffic, no matter who pays them for the transmission, and reduce competition in the most rapidly growing area of high tech expansion.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the meetings are taking place at the Information Technology Industry Council, a high tech industry lobbying group. Some of the companies in attendance include Cisco (CSCO), Microsoft (MSFT), Verizon, AT&T (T), and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.

Google is not at the meetings. Nor are any consumer groups. Nor, I would bet, are Facebook, Twitter, Hulu, Netflix, or other leaders in information-based services.

Those not invited to the parley should immediately pull together their own lobbying efforts if they hope to preserve their own business strategies and opportunities. Right now, the telecoms and cable companies that provide connectivity vacuum out much of the discretionary spending that consumers are willing to do for access to online information and entertainment. After paying $50 to $70 for a cable bill and maybe another $50 to $100 for a cell phone and however much for a land line, people simply don’t have a lot of money left to pay for subscriptions or services.

The close control of connectivity has led to an imbalance in the economics of the Internet. The telecoms and cable companies have fattened their own bank accounts by taking as much monetary value as they can get from consumers. It may make for short term profits, but this is a dangerous practice. Any time you try to further your own fortunes at the expense of an entire ecosystem, you’re courting disaster for all, including, eventually, yourself.

At one point, I suggested that a back room deal was necessary to iron out the complex tangle of issues that could reasonably come up. But that would only work if all those involved were represented at a meeting. That’s simply not happening here. It’s an ill omen for what is probably the industry’s single most important issue.