Google & Verizon's Evil Plan Is Really Bad News for Regular Internet Users

[another saigon]

If we wake up one day to an Internet that has a carpool lane for the upper class, it's worth thinking about the alternatives.




August 25, 2010 |

http://www.alternet.org/media/147953/google_%26_verizon%27s_evil_plan_is_really_bad_news_for_regular_internet_users/


The firestorm over tech giant Google and telco titan Verizon's self-interested proposal to arbitrarily codify a pay-to-play Internet will dominate the news in the coming months, as net neutrality steps onto a mainstream media stage crowded with Muslim mosques and other distracting fodder. But now that other telcos like warrantless wiretapper AT&T have quickly endorsed Googlezon's proposal, it was left to Jon Stewart on a recent episode of the Daily Show to sum up the mammoth migraine awaiting us all: "We're fucked."

My colleague Ryan Singel at Wired had a similar take, calling the one-time staunch net neutrality defender Google a "carrier-humping net neutrality surrender monkey." Both assessments are dead-on: By giving up its previous commitment to open networks and devices in both the wireline and the wireless space, Google -- arguably the most powerful tech company in the world -- has simply cashed in its neutrality chips, nearly fully compromised "Don't Be Evil" corporate philosophy, and screwed us all. The irony is that the Internet we've become used to over the last couple decades has made Google and Verizon powerhouses in the first place.

"The Internet and communications industries are in the same category as the energy, transport and finance industries: for they are the lifeblood of commerce and speech in this nation," said Columbia Law School copyright and communications professor Tim Wu, whose 2003 paper "Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination" helped shape the network neutrality issue. "Just consider the power and public role of firms like Verizon or Google (especially if they work together). Sitting atop the web, they can influence what firms succeed or fail -- by making sites load faster or slower, or end up on page 10 of search results. It goes further -- in subtle ways, the information carriers have the power to influence elections and even censor speech they don't like."

[ejpoeta]

1. the internet as it is right now is what made facebook and google possible.

it is what made a handful of singers possible. it is the only way we have a voice as regular folks, because we have an equal chance on the internet as the big mega conglomerates. i wish more poeple would friggin wake up and pay the fuck attention.

[msongs]

2. internet needs to be a public utility that google has to PAY to access nt

[another saigon]

3. if only

:(

[LiberalAndProud]

4. How is the Google/Verizon deal different from the Apple/AT&T deal?

I'm not being obstinate, I was asked this and didn't have an answer.

[LiberalAndProud]

6. (" " )

^Yeah, that's what *I* said.^

[Touchdown]

7. One is a phone maker. The other is a network the phone works with

the only network the phone works with.

[LiberalAndProud]

8. Yes. In what way are the two alliances different?

It seems to me you've pointed out the similarities.

[Touchdown]

9. Google doesn't manufacture anything.

They make an operating system that cellphones use, but they don't make the phones themselves. Apple is a hardware maker. They also make software.

Apple does not have a search engine. Google is one. There are rumors that Apple is designing a search engine, but nobody outside knows that for sure.

Google signed a deal with Verizon that affects the Net Neutral rules in place today. The deal would alter how fast a Verizon subscriber gets to certain websites, vs. others. It affects internet access only, and largely a wired DSL network.

Apple's product is a phone (or small wireless net computer in the case of the iPad 3G). It uses AT&T's 3G GSM network. It can access wi-fi hot spots, but it can still make voice calls only on the 3G network. The exclusive deal the two worked out is largely the incompatibility of the iPhone to Verizon and Sprint's networks. the iPhone is a GSM phone. a later, and faster 3G technology that is incompatible with Verizon's older CMDA tech. The iPhone would have to have a CMDA chip installed for it to work on Sprint and Verizon, thus the exclusivity with AT&T's tech instead. AT&T use GSM, which is what 90% of world 3G carriers have installed. CMDA is strictly USA. Going GSM means Apple can sell iPhones around the world.

4G is backward compatible with both of these 3G techs, so the discrepencies will disappear when 4G becomes widespread in the next couple of years.

I am not aware of any deal Apple made with AT&T over changing internet access speeds depending on the site accessed, which is what Google and Verizon's deal is. Apple's & AT&T's relationship is solely cell tower network access & service for the iMaker's wireless products.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

5. K&R