ahar...@earthlink.net www.freepress.org is a good place to go to fight this too. -------------------------------------------------- From: "brent wodehouse" <brent_wodeho...@thefence.us> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 11:57 PM To: <scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com> Subject: [scifinoir2] [FYI] Don't be fooled: the Google-Verizon plan would kill Net Neutrality
> http://thephoenix.com/Boston/news/106645-dont-be-fooled-the-google-verizon-plan-would-kil/ > > [ > http://thephoenix.com/Boston/news/106645-dont-be-fooled-the-google-verizon-plan-would-kil/ > ]Don't be fooled: the Google-Verizon plan would kill Net Neutrality > > Evil > > By [ http://thephoenix.com/Boston/Authors/EDITORIAL/ ]EDITORIAL | August > 11, 201 > > > Want evidence that Google is just another avaricious, monopoly-minded > corporate behemoth? Consider this: Google has retreated from its long-held > support for net neutrality and teamed with Verizon to suggest that new > laws allow Internet providers to favor some Web services over others. > Google and Verizon also want Congress to exempt mobile devices from net > neutrality and to limit the Federal Communications Commission's regulation > of the Internet. > > Google and Verizon have proposed this in a very simple and undeniably > clever way, which - unless thoughtfully considered - appears to be > eminently reasonable. > > Under this plan, the Internet as it now exists and is currently understood > would remain net neutral. All content would be treated as equal. > > The Internet as it develops in the future, however, would be different. > Tiered service would be allowed. > > In other words, the giant corporate providers who effectively govern > access and regulate traffic would be able to give preferential treatment > to certain content or content providers. > > This is, in and of itself, a nasty piece of snake-oil salesmanship, > especially given the speed and unpredictability with which the digital > world evolves. But when mobile access is stirred into the brew, it becomes > positively toxic. All trends favor more and more mobile access. Morgan > Stanley predicts that within five years, the mobile Web will outstrip the > desktop Internet. > > Given the extent to which the Internet governs economic development and > the extent to which it is the medium for free speech, it is clear that the > Google-Verizon plan is bad news. So much for Google's motto, "Don't be > evil." > > To understand this pledge, it must be considered in context. The pithy > slogan appears as the first three words in Google's corporate code of > conduct governing relations with investors. Yet no corporation can > survive, let alone thrive, without turning a profit. So it stands to > reason that Googlers (yes, that's how the company refers to its employees) > may have a less restricted view of how to interpret the motto than, say, > the world's non-Googlers. > > If net neutrality were a simple code of conduct, then the FCC last year > defined it as follows: providers cannot favor their own content; they need > to explain when and why variable Internet speeds are imposed on consumers; > and they can not limit access to lawful content. > > As neat and clean as these principles seem, their implementation could > prove to be difficult to impossible, thanks to the Court of Appeals for > the DC Circuit, which in April ratified rules adopted by the Bush > administration that were intended to derail Internet regulation. > > The court's decision undoubtedly contributed to the break-up last week of > the closed-door discussions the FCC was holding with big Internet > corporate players. Whether those talks should have been conducted in > secret is now a moot point. But the parallels with former first lady > Hillary Clinton's private health-care deliberations and Vice-President > Dick Cheney's closed energy sessions are certainly troubling. > > Power, of course, abhors a vacuum. So while Google's joint proposal with > Verizon was a vicious slap in the face to advocates of net neutrality - > especially in view of the company's previous admirable support of the > concept - under the circumstances it should come as no surprise. Consider > the predatory vigor Google displayed when it cornered the digital market > on books whose copyright has expired. Vito Corleone would have admired its > ruthless elegance. However, Robert Darnton, the historian who heads > Harvard's vast system of libraries, has been eloquent in pointing out the > intellectual hazards of this development. > > It would be foolish to expect Congress to unplug the Google-Verizon view > of the future. Massachusetts congressman Edward Markey has been foiled in > his attempts to do so. But the FCC does have the power to short-circuit > it. The FCC must reach back to precedent established since 1910 and > declare Internet providers "common carriers" subject to federal > regulation. This is not some cute form of legerdemain. It is legal > hardball that would no doubt provoke a hotly contested lawsuit. > > If the FCC will not stand up to Google, who will? It is time that someone > establishes that what's good for Google is not necessarily what is good > for the United States - or the world. > > For more information, and to learn what you can do, visit the Save the > Internet Coalition at [ http://savetheinternet.com/ ]savetheinternet.com. > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Post your SciFiNoir Profile at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/app/peoplemap2/entry/add?fmvn=mapYahoo! > > Groups Links > > >
