I trust you know that I am a long term advocate of Net Neutrality. At present, it is under severe threat from corporate telecommunications giants, who may have been joined by Google, a former ally in the battle to keep the Internet open. Here is an explanation of the issue, followed by a petition I urge you to sign.
That’s what The New York Times recently suggested when it reported that Google and Verizon are nearing an agreement where Google would not oppose the broadband provider if it wants to charge Website owners a fee for the privilege of delivering content more quickly to end users. If true, the Google-Verizon pact has the potential of doing an end run around the Federal Communication Commission’s recent attempts to preserve an open Internet.
Google and Verizon have denied the Times’ report. Verizon posted a public comment on its blog saying the Times report "fundamentally misunderstands our purpose …our goal is an Internet policy framework that ensures openness and accountability, and incorporates specific FCC authority, while maintaining investment and innovation. To suggest this is a business arrangement between our companies is entirely incorrect." Verizon’s statement did not explicitly deny it was negotiating with Google.
Meanwhile, a Google spokesperson recently told UK newspaper The Independent that Google has "not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google traffic." The search giant says it remains committed to an open Internet.
What is Net Neutrality?
At its core, net neutrality means that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) would be prohibited from slowing down Internet access speeds based on what you were doing online.
Activities like video streaming or peer-to-peer file sharing would have to be delivered to you at the same speed as less data-intensive functions like e-mail and basic Web browsing.
Implications for You
If the Times’ report is true, this would mean that you would get fast access over a broadband connection only to Websites and online services that are willing to pay ISPs for speedy delivery. Websites that didn’t pay would be slower to load and less usable.
The fear is that without net neutrality, new and innovative online businesses would not be able to pay the delivery costs to compete against larger Internet companies with deeper pockets like Amazon, Google, or Microsoft.
Schmidt Sings A Different Tune
While Google’s assertion that it is committed to an open Internet may sound reassuring, recent statements by company CEO Eric Schmidt suggest otherwise. In fact, Schmidt appears to confirm the worst fears of open Internet advocates by redefining what net neutrality means.
London’s Telegraph reportes Schmidt confirmed that Google had been trying for some time to come to an agreement with Verizon over the definition of net neutrality. Then Google’s CEO said, "people get confused [about net neutrality]. What we mean is that if you have one data type, like video, you don’t discriminate against one person’s video in favor of another. It’s OK to discriminate across different types [of data]," according to the Telegraph… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <PC World>
The free market is already at work on the Internet. The service you purchase from your ISP (Internet Service Provider) guarantees a certain bandwidth (speed of data transfer). If you want more speed available to you, you have to pay for it. That is fair. The service I purchase from my HSP (Hosting Service Provider) that delivers Politics Plus to you also guarantees a certain bandwidth. If I want more, I have to pay for it. That is fair. That is the free market. Net Neutrality would guarantee that the only thing that effects the speed of data transfer between Politics Plus and you is the bandwidth you and I have chosen to buy. Does that make sense?
Now, giant telecoms don’t want us to have that freedom. They want to control the speed of data transfer based on what we are doing. Right now the argument is economic. They claim they want to cut transfer rates for data intensive applications like file sharing. But once they get that power, how long will it be before they start cutting transfer rated based on political content? Considering that greedy corporations want to control what we see, hear and read, how much will they be willinbg to pay to stifle content in opposition to their agenda? Measure the time in heartbeats.
Credo Action has a petition to Google to stop dealing with Verizon under the table.
Google’s motto is "Don’t be evil," but Google is about to cut a deal with Verizon that would end the Internet as we know it.
According to a front-page New York Times story, the deal would allow "Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content’s creators are willing to pay for the privilege."1
It would create fast Internet lanes for the largest corporations and slow lanes for the rest of us.
That is why CREDO is joining MoveOn, Free Press, and Color of Change in rallying Google users to tell Google, "Don’t be evil."
Speak up for a free and open Internet by signing this petition. With massive amounts of public pressure, we can stop this deal.
From the beginning, the Internet has been a level playing field that allows everyone to connect to one another and to the world of content available online — whether it’s Daily Kos or FOX News.
This deal would change all of that by allowing Google and Verizon to pick what websites you can see over others. It would undermine the open Internet upon which hundreds of millions of people rely.
Our Internet connection should be free of corporate gatekeepers — there’s only one Internet, and it shouldn’t matter who your provider is or whether you’re logging on from home or your cell phone.
Sign this petition to tell Google, "Don’t be evil."
Founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin created Google to make information freely available to everyone online.
But this deal is a complete reversal that abandons their core principles. It’s evil and Google must walk away from it.
Sign this letter and tell Google’s founders: "Your Verizon deal IS evil, and it must be stopped."
1 "Google and Verizon Near Deal on Web Pay Tiers," New York Times, August 4, 2010
To sign the petition, click here. I did.
22 Responses to “Action Alert: Google, Don’t Be Evil!”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
“For once stop and think of your users rather than your profits. You all make enough money now to have contributed to the ruin of the middle class world wide why not stop all the back dor doggy hump and just there be at least one true free market system function especially because it functions well as it is.”
Amen Mark. 🙂
This story is based on a huge amount of speculation on the NYT’s part. Google has issue some pretty straight forward denials (http://twitter.com/googlepubpolicy/status/20393606477 for example). Google has a pretty big stake in maintaining the current net-neutral stance, their services would be the 1st thing metered heavily and with them expanding with android into all sort of devices via wireless it is in the long term interests to be in on the conversation. 3g/4g – which can truly be declared private networks and not the “internet” since they are owned a licensed but the wireless network mark a true demarcation line between the mixed network and a device/client based network. The talks Google was in with Verizon was basiclly to discuss the difference between the networks and how they would handle and meter traffic crossing from one to the other. The final agreee was that internet traffic, for now, would remain neutral and traffic to the wireless networks would not be throttled and the topic would remain open for further discussion.
Welcome, Mike. 🙂 I’ve clicked a number of 5s next to your name lately.
This would not be the first time a major corporation has acted in a matter completely opposite to their stated policy. Just look at BP’s stated safety policy. What you say makes sense. The way I figured it, the statement by Verizon’s CEO was nothing but double talk, and Schmidt’s talk with the Telegraph a but the definition of net neutrality raised sufficient concern for me to say that Google MAY be waffling. Since the petition I posted is a request to Google that they stay true to their stated position, I think that reminding them how their users feel about this can only be positive. Assuming you are correct, there is no harm done.
Thanks for the info.
One of the very last nails in the coffin if the corporations get their way.
Fly, I agree. The Internet is the only place where an poor or middle class individual can exercise freedom of the press.
I think your idea of the free market and their idea of the free market are not the same thing.
That’s because when they say free, they mean captive.
TC
I signed it here and also other places.
If they get their way, it could effect all us small bloggers. In fact it may eliminate us.
Tim, I don’t know about eliminate, but it could she slow us down. Sherry Peyton, one of our regulars has said she wishes she could come here more, but cannot, because she can only get dialup where she lives. That’s a shame, because she has so much good to say. Imagine if it was like that for everyone.
WAY TO GO, TomCat! NET NEUTRALITY FOREVER!!! The internet has been the last bastion of freedom from oligarchical control, and it must remain that way!!!!!! Corporate America has bought out and ruined our government, magazines, radio, and even TV by flooding us with an unending and excessive stream of commercials and editiorial content THEY want presented. The same must not occur with the internet!
I started watching DVDs of one of the finest TV series ever produced, Route 66, from 1960-1964. That was back in the good old days of network TV, when they presented intelligent programming; TV series’ runs were 30-31 shows per season (and were able to be produced within reasonable budgets); and there were only SIX MINUTES of commercials per viewing hour! Cable TV in the 1980s was supposed to be viewer-supported and relatively commercial-free. We all know that didn’t last too long. As corporate mergers devoured the cable and satellite industry, the net result was 1/3 of every viewing hour devoted to commercials, with lots of needless repitition of programming just to get commercial money pouring in 24/7. Clear Channel has all but destroyed radio, giving us boring, sterile, identical programming for all markets and saddling us with thousands of mindlessfar-right talk radio stations. This CANNOT be allowed to happen with the internet!
Amen Jack. Another fabulous rant!
Tomcat Tomcat, call it St. Google!
Welcome Mona! 🙂
St. Google?
Tom great explanation. How come Alan Grayson has signed on against net neutrality?
Lisa, I heard Grayson speak on this the other day. He isn’t opposed to net neutrality. He believes that the FCC cannot be trusted, because the connections between it’s members and the giant telecoms are so strong. Instead of a regulatory solution, he wants net neutrality mandated by law.
Once again we’re on the same track and I’m thrilled you posted this, so I don’t have to. I’ve already signed everything I can.
btw, I’m sure these databases automatically reject duplicate signatures. If the opposition catches them, it can only hurt the cause.
Thanks, Leslie. That’s why I have signed four different petitions on the subject once each.
Little off topic
This is normal bullshit for businesses in 2010, unfortunately.
Speaking of free market; my beef with Google is agreeing to censorship with the government of China, just to get that profitable market.
Keep the internet honest. It’s hard to keep information from people even with censorship. Google sold out and will lose in the future when the China market will get the censored information anyways.
That is also a valid beef. Didn’t they recently back off that?
I thought it was still on. They had a to do. China called Google a corporate spy for America, but later they went back to what was said to be the same conditions as before.
You may well be correct. I thought I had read that it was off, but I’m not sure.