How Comcast and Huge Telecom Players' Latest Gambit Could Destroy the Internet as We Know It

The telecom wars are heating up and the American Internet user is the proverbial pig on the spit.
By David Rosen, AlterNet
Posted on December 21, 2010

On December 21st, the Federal Communications Commission issued new rules governing Internet transmission. In essence, they effectively divide broadband content distribution between wireline and wireless transmission, providing nominal “net neutrality” protection over content distributed over telephone and cable lines, but deregulating such content sent through the airwaves.

As Timothy Karr of FreePress wrote in the Huffington Post:

“The rule is so riddled with loopholes that it's become clear that this FCC chairman crafted it with the sole purpose of winning the endorsement of AT&T and cable lobbyists, and not defending the interests of the tens of millions of Internet users.”

While Karr and others are focusing on the front story and the FCC’s capitulation to corporate interests, there is a more compelling back story as to how this regulatory farce came about. It is this story that maps out the underlying fictions that provide the rationale for the FCC’s actions and the likely long-term consequences for telecommunications in America.

* * *

As the telecom wars heat up, the American Internet user is the proverbial pig on the spit. A series of recent developments have drawn public attention to major challenges that are redefining the Internet. And it doesn’t look good for those championing Internet freedom, meaningful competition, improved quality of service or an end to conglomerate integration. Sadly, the fix is in.

In May, the DC Court of Appeals handed down a decision to what is popularly know as the BitTorrent case, Comcast v FCC. Originally, Comcast had blocked BitTorrent transmissions over its network and BitTorrent complained. The FCC investigated Comcast's traffic management of BitTorrent and ordered it to end its "discriminatory" practices. However, the Court ruled that Comcast has the right to limit the Internet connections of its customers who were using BitTorrent’s peer-to-peer (p2p) services on the grounds that such limiting falls under the role of network maintenance. More critical, the Court raised serious questions as to whether the FCC has the ability to regulate broadband Internet access altogether.

A few months later, Level 3 Communications drew the public’s attention to an effort by Comcast to impose a new pricing tier or “toll booth” on its transport of Netflix’s streaming video. This comes amidst deliberations by the FCC and Justice Department over Comcast’s bid to acquire NBC-Universal and a string of other questionable actions, including censorship charges, leveled against the company.

The BitTorrent and Level 3 actions were trial balloons pointing to deeper issues related to the future of broadband Internet. On one level, they reveal how key players in “content” – and especially video content – delivery are lining up against one another over, what else, money, or how the fees they charge are to be allocated.

More significantly, the battle puts into stark relief the issues of who controls the wires and wireless spectrum, the backbone of America’s communications infrastructure. Internet traffic, whether that of BitTorrent, Netflix or your email, is transmitted over the primary wires and spectrum controlled by AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and other networks and wireless services. The Internet rides over these wires and airwaves, and these companies control the access points.

The battle lines are being drawn over three key issues. First, will the current distribution model known for an open Internet, with “net neutrality” safeguards, persist – in other words, will all data continue to travel over telecom networks at the same rate and remain uncensored by Internet Service Providers (ISPs), excluding “illegal” content like child pornography?

Second, will the current consolidation of ISPs persist with giant, integrated conglomerates like Comcast and Time Warner controlling both the network and the content -- or will there be a renewed commitment to “open architecture,” to an Internet promoting meaningful competition among multiple access and content providers on the basis of services offered and prices charged?

Third, will the FCC further extend its 2002 reclassification of broadband service as an “information service,” thus further removing data transport from traditional “common carriage” obligations? Will it further collapse the difference between the Internet as a distribution network from the content or applications it supports?

FCC chairman Julius Genachowski December 21st announcement is a fictions compromise, like Obama’s plan to extend the Bush-era tax give-a-ways, and will only serve to further commercialize Internet traffic. His support for "usage-based pricing" will permit wireline ISPs to charge extra fees to heavy Internet users, like Level 3, who transport lots of video or videogames. And, in keeping with the Obama spirit of compromise, he opposes ISPs from “throttling” or slowing data traffic, thus protecting one aspect of net neutrality.

The FCC proposal is another example of how Washington politicians and their dutiful bureaucrats capitulate to big capital to the determinant of ordinary Americans and the long-term erosion of the U.S. economy. The FCC’s plan will set the stage for another round of federal give-a-ways to the giant telecoms, accompanied by an increase in customer charges and a further erosion of service.

* * *

At the heart of the FCC proposed new pricing models for the Internet is the shibboleth of network data traffic congestion. It is an alarm being raised by many within the telecommunications industry and is based on the false assumption that, as video becomes an increasing larger proportion of data traffic on the Web, the network is in jeopardy of collapse. The myth of congestion provides the rationale for a new pricing model as well as the need to end net neutrality and restrict ISP competition.

The Internet and Web consists of four interlinked components: (i) the phone or cable company that provides the “last mile” facilitating the consumer’s broadband connectivity through the residential telephone company’s digital subscriber line (DSL) or cable modem fiber line; (ii) the ISP that connects the customer to the PoP (point-of-presence) on the Internet and World Wide Web, (iii) the “middle mile” provider that links the customer to wider network; and (iv) the provider of long distance, high-speed connections to the network “backbone.”

While the middle mile and backbone utilize high-capacity fiber networks, the crunch comes at the last mile. And it is this piece of the grid that reflects the telecom trust’s failure to upgrade its networks. They have pocketed billions of dollars in subsides and tax breaks and have little to improve their networks. As with most American industrial sectors, the demands for short-term profits makes telecommunications providers unable to meet long-term market demands. No wonder the U.S. ranks 15th among developed counties in terms of broadband utilization.

According to a recent report from Cisco Systems, by the end of 2010, worldwide global online video users are projected to surpass 1 billion and video is projected to account for 40 percent of consumer Internet traffic. The traffic includes Internet video from YouTube, TV programs from Hulu, video-on-demand like Netflix movies and p2p sharing like BitTorrent. Enhanced video quality like 3D and HD only further compounds the video signal.

Online traffic grew 45 percent during 2009 to 176 exabytes per year (an exabyte consists of a million trillion bytes) and is projected to reach 767 exabytes per year by 2014. According to Cisco, this means: “The average monthly traffic in 2014 will be equivalent to 32 million people streaming Avatar in 3D, continuously for the entire month.”

Determining U.S. Internet video traffic is much trickier. Sandvine, an Ontario-based network services company, found that in the August-September 2010 period, North Americans gobbled up only one-third as much broadband video as users in the Asia-Pacific region; North Americans consumed an estimated 4 Gigabytes per month of Internet bandwidth whereas those in Asia-Pacific region used 12 Gigabytes. Sandvine also found that Netflix, with nearly 17 million subscribers, accounted for more than 20 percent of downstream Internet traffic during the primetime TV viewing hours of 8 to 10 p.m.

ComScore, a Reston, VA, market research firm, offers a different take on Internet video usage. It found, in May 2010, that 183 million U.S. Internet users watched nearly 34 billion online videos. Google sites, especially YouTube, account for 14.6 billion videos, representing 43.1 percent of all videos viewed online. Hulu, a joint venture of NBC and FOX and aggregating videos from nearly 200 content providers, came in second with 1.2 billion videos (3.5%), with other sites trailing behind.

Champions of the telecom trust rallied to the Sandvine findings as proof of network congestion and the basis to impose a new pricing model. This model goes by a variety of names, "usage-based pricing,” "paid prioritization" and “pay-as-you-go Internet access,” among others. Kyle McSlarrow, president, Nation Cable and Telecommunications Association, a trade group, recently wrote that the cable industry backs the new pricing model: "A usage-based pricing model, for instance, might help spur adoption by price-sensitive consumers at the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder," he wrote. Craig Moffett, an analyst at Bernstein Research, chimed in with an investor’s glee: "Usage-based pricing will preserve, and even enhance, the economics of cable's infrastructure . . . even if consumers eventually get some, or even all, of their video content over the Web."

Peter Burrows, of Bloomberg Businessweek, takes the argument one step further. Drawing upon research from Juniper Networks, he insists that, based on a "revenue-per-bit" model, the big telecom conglomerates like AT&T and Comcast “will see [their] Internet revenues grow by 5 percent a year through 2020,” but traffic will “surge by 27 percent annually.” “By this math,” he insists, “the carriers' business models break down in 2014.” Or does it?

* * *

Freud once famously noted, “"Sometimes a pipe is just a pipe." And sometimes it isn’t. This is the same with Internet traffic congestion.

The Internet has evolved through three phases and each has been defined by “congestion.” The first phase, during the pre-1990s when the Internet had yet become a mass-market phenomenon, congestion was experienced in email delays, limits to bulk file transfers and low bit rate interactive sessions. The second phase of the 1990s saw rapid Internet adoption with dial-up accounts offering 56.6 kb/s rates and congestion taking the form of a slow system with only intermittent connectivity. In a famous 1995 case, the phone companies attempted to block companies offering the new service, Voice-over-Internet-Protocol (VoIP), on the base of, yes, congestion; companies like Vonage would not exist today had the telecoms had their way. The third phase began around 2000 and saw the wide-scale adoption of broadband. It eliminated the dialup bottleneck with complementary advances in “upstream” capabilities (e.g., more powerful multimedia-capable PCs) and downstream content delivery (e.g., “rich” and interactive media content).

Internet traffic has grown due to four principal factors: (i) an increase in the number of online subscribers, (ii) the amount of time each subscriber spends online, (iii) the growing mix of wireline and wireless distribution options and (iv) the differences and complexity of applications (especially video-based apps) carried online.

However, as Andrew Odlyzko, a professor at the University of Minnesota and former AT&T Labs researcher, argues, “there is no evidence of wireline Internet traffic growing so fast as to require intrusive traffic interference to control it. … traffic growth rates have been declining, to levels slower than the rate of improvement of latest transmission equipment.”

Adding to this critique, three MIT scholars, Steven Bauer, David Clark and William Lehr, recently released an invaluable study on web traffic, “The Evolution of Internet Congestion,” and offer the following warning: “It is certainly possible that network operators, under the guise of managing congestion, may exploit their control over the network pipes in ways that are socially undesirable ….” Their warning should be the starting point for linking alleged congestion to changes in pricing and overall control of the Internet.

Comcast, like AT&T, Verizon or other dominant controller of distribution, has gained ever-increasing control over access by and to its subscribers. In order for a subscriber to reach the Internet, and for content providers to reach the consumer, they have to pass through an ISP's last-mile network, whether over the phone line or airwaves. The ISP is the gatekeeper. This situation gets more troubling when one recalls that in addition to being a last-mile gatekeeper serving residential, business and wholesale customers, Comcast, like the others dominant players in the telecom trust, also operates a powerful backbone network and is now moving in to content.

Comcast is seeking, like other dominant carriers, to be both “vertically” integrated, i.e., control connectivity from the last-mile to the backbone, as well as “horizontally” integrated, i.e., control available content or applications like NBC-U. Its two-dimensional system of integration pushes beyond the iPhone “walled garden” model by which Apple controls the applications available to the consumer. This two-dimensional integration suggests the real, long-term danger that the FCC and Congress refuse to recognize.

The real drama being played out in terms of Internet congestion and changing pricing models needs to be seen as part of a more profound and systemic change in the control of the nation’s telecommunications infrastructure, especially the Internet. Comcast and other conglomerates that make up the telecommunications trust, like the trusts that dominate the oil and gas sector, health care or financial services, are aggressively pushing to control all aspects of the market sector. Unless the debate over congestion and pricing is opened up, refocused to the larger question of industry consolidation, the FCC December 21st proposal will only make the problem worse.

Stay tuned – the worst is yet to come.

GOP leader puts kibosh on Net neutrality bill

by Marguerite Reardon - September 30, 2010

The latest attempt to introduce Net neutrality legislation has stalled in a House of Representatives committee after a prominent Republican declined to support the proposal.

Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the senior Republican on the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he would not support a Net neutrality proposal put forth earlier this week by Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)

Waxman introduced a proposal for Net neutrality that would have prohibited wired broadband providers from "unjustly or unreasonably" discriminating against legal Web traffic. The proposal was very similar to one that was put forth by Verizon Wireless and Google last month. Both proposals would have prohibited wireless broadband networks from the same nondiscrimination requirement.

Waxman said in a statement that he was disappointed that Barton rejected the proposal since the committee had included Republican staffers in its deliberations. Waxman described the proposed legislation as a win-win for consumers as well as broadband service providers by empowering the Federal Communications Commission to enforce violations while providing adequate protections for cable and phone companies.

"Consumers would win protections that preserve the openness of the Internet, while the Internet service providers would receive relief from their fears of reclassification," he said.

Waxman admitted the legislation was only a temporary stop-gap to protect Net neutrality until Congress could come up with a more permanent solution.

Barton said he couldn't support the proposal because he feels that Congress should be looking for a more permanent solution.

"I have consulted with Republican leadership and members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and there is a widespread view that there is not sufficient time to ensure that Chairman Waxman's proposal will keep the Internet open without chilling innovation and job creation," Barton said in a statement. "This is not a solution for the future of the Internet. America should be about preserving the vibrant and competitive free market that exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by federal or state regulation."

AT&T, which worked with Waxman and other lawmakers on the compromise legislation, also expressed disappointment that it did not get full support.

"While we are disappointed that it was not possible to introduce a bill with bipartisan support, we are mindful that these issues are important and complex, and that there was insufficient time to consider and act on our efforts," Jim Cicconi, senior executive president of AT&T's external and legislative affairs, said in a statement. "We are pleased that ranking members Barton and Stearns remain open to congressional action on this issue, and pledge to work closely with them toward that end."

The stalled effort is the latest in a long line of failed attempts to get formal Net neutrality rules in place. The Federal Communications Commission is currently working on official rules. But some critics argue that a recent federal court decision has called the FCC's authority into question. A court ruled earlier this year that the FCC did not have the jurisdiction to sanction Comcast when it was found violating Net neutrality principles.

Net Neutrality: We're Still Waiting

by Timothy Karr - Tuesday, September 21, 2010 by SavetheInternet.com

Exactly a year ago, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski made a major promise to deliver on Net Neutrality. "If we wait too long to preserve a free and open Internet, it will be too late," he told an influential audience in Washington.

We're still waiting.


Instead of doing what's right for Internet users, Genachowski has dodged, dithered and delayed. But it's not too late to turn things around. And Genachowski's legacy as chair of the FCC - either as a champion of openness or as a toothless bureaucrat - rests on what he does now.


The path forward seemed much clearer on September 21, 2009, when Genachowski went to the Brookings Institution to deliver his first major speech as head of the FCC. Genachowski didn't mince words. He declared that without Net Neutrality protections, "We could see the Internet's doors shut to entrepreneurs, the spirit of innovation stifled, a full and free flow of information compromised."


He continued:

"The fact that the internet is evolving rapidly does not mean we can or should abandon the underlying values fostered by an open network or the important goal of setting rules of the road to protect the free and open internet. Saying nothing and doing nothing would impose its own form of unacceptable cost."

"Doing nothing" didn't seem to be an option. He had a majority of the votes at the FCC and support from the president and leaders of Congress.


But what a difference a year can make.


Since his September 2009 Brookings' speech, Genachowski has made little progress to protect Net Neutrality. He started a rule making process last October but hasn't made any rules.


To be fair, things got more complicated when a federal appeals court ruled the FCC lacked the authority to regulate broadband because of some bad decisions during the Bush administration. But instead of seizing the opportunity to restore the agency's ability to protect consumers, Genachowski wavered and retreated.


He eventually came up with a "Third Way" proposal, then immediately started backing away from his own idea, ducking questions from the media regarding his commitment to the proposal.


Then his top deputy tried to broker a disastrous closed-door deal with industry that virtually ignored overwhelming public outcry in favor of a strong Net Neutrality standard. And when Google and Verizon came forward with a vastly unpopular proposal of their own, the chairman sputtered some more.


His only response has been to solicit more public input on questions that have already been asked and answered.


Obama's Waffler


Remember, this is the man whom President Obama put into office with the explicit understanding that his first priority was to protect Net Neutrality. "I am a strong supporter of Net Neutrality," Obama pledged in 2007. "As president I'm going to make sure that that is the principle that my FCC commissioners are applying as we move forward."


It's clear from his own statements that the FCC chairman knows what meaningful rules should look like.
The first thing he must do is restore the FCC's authority to protect Internet users by "reclassifying" broadband under the law. Next, the FCC must enact Net Neutrality rules that safeguard the open Internet for all users, no matter how they get online.


Genachowski has been swamped with public support for the move but seems intent on inaction - and doing nothing that would upset the powerful special interests that make up the phone and cable lobby.


Genachowski now has a choice. He can make a decisive and principled move to protect Net Neutrality and be remembered as a hero of the Internet, or he can continue to waffle and be remembered as the FCC head who stood idle as our online freedoms were handed over to the likes of AT&T, Comcast and Verizon.

FCC seeks public input on new ‘net neutrality’ rules

FCC seeks public input on new net neutrality rules
By The Associated Press
Thursday, September 2nd, 2010

Federal regulators are seeking public input on what rules should apply to wireless Internet access and specialized services that aren't part of the Internet but are delivered over wired broadband connections.

The move by the Federal Communications Commission marks the next step in the agency's long-running effort to adopt so-called "network neutrality" regulations to prevent broadband providers from discriminating against traffic flowing over their lines. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, as well as many big Internet companies, say these rules are needed to prevent phone and cable companies from abusing their control over high-speed Internet access to become online gatekeepers.

But the commission faces fierce resistance from phone and cable companies, which insist they need flexibility to manage network traffic to prevent high-bandwidth applications from hogging capacity. Phone companies are particularly opposed to applying net neutrality rules to wireless services, which have more capacity constraints than wired systems.

Phone and cable companies also fear that strict net neutrality rules would prevent them from charging a premium for specialized services that travel over dedicated networks, often called "managed services." That category includes video services such as AT&T Inc.'s U-Verse and could expand to include online gaming, remote medical monitoring and even power grid controls. Broadband providers warn that rules that prohibit them from offering premium services could discourage them from continuing to invest in their lines.

The FCC's latest move comes several weeks after Verizon Communications Inc. and Google Inc. offered their own policy proposal to try to find a middle ground on net neutrality. Their plan would prohibit phone and cable companies from slowing down, blocking or charging to prioritize Internet traffic traveling over their regular broadband lines. But it would allow broadband providers to charge extra for services like U-Verse that are separate from the public Internet.

The Verizon-Google plan also would exempt wireless services from net neutrality rules.

The FCC's decision to seek public comment on both issues is a disappointment to public interest groups that have been calling on the agency to move ahead quickly with strong net neutrality regulations. They say these rules are needed to prevent phone and cable companies from favoring their own services or those of business partners and from discriminating against Internet phone calls, online video and other Web services that compete with their core businesses.

"While the FCC continues to play the game of kick the can down the road, consumers are left unprotected," said Free Press Research Director Derek Turner. He added that "nothing in today's notice contains anything new."

Free Press and other public interest groups have also been sharply critical of the proposal from Verizon and Google. They say it would create a two-tiered Internet with a fast lane for online companies that can pay more and a slow lane for everyone else. They also complain that it includes a giant loophole for the mobile Web at a time when more and more consumers are going online using handheld devices.

Network neutrality rules have been a top priority for Genachowski since he joined the FCC last summer. The agency has been trying to craft some sort of compromise on the issue in recent months, but those efforts recently reached an impasse. In a statement, Genachowski said the FCC "will continue to be vigilant in guarding against threats to Internet freedom."

Even before it moves ahead with any network neutrality proposal, the agency must first establish its authority to regulate broadband in the aftermath of a federal appeals court ruling in April that cast doubt on its existing regulatory framework.

Two-Tier Internet?

By Michael Snyder - BLN Contributing Writer
Published on 08-27-2010

The Internet as you know it is in serious, serious danger. Some of the most powerful communications companies in the world have been involved in negotiations and have been making agreements that would throw net neutrality out the window and would move us toward a two-tier Internet. So exactly what would that mean? It would mean that the big corporate giants that have a virtual monopoly on other forms of media and entertainment would be able to buy access to the blazing fast "next generation" Internet that communications companies are developing and the rest of us (like this site for example) would be stuck on the decaying "gravel roads" of the old Internet. The threat that this poses to freedom, liberty, Internet commerce and the free flow of information should not be underestimated.

I want you to take a few moments and imagine with me what the future of the Internet could look like if something is not done. Imagine a world in which your Internet service provider gives you more "choices" regarding your level of Internet access. For a "budget" price, you can get email and access to several hundred of the hottest and most popular websites (controlled by the big media conglomerates of course) on the incredibly fast "next generation" Internet. For a bit more, you can get access to thousands of websites (once again, controlled by the big media conglomerates) on the new blazing fast version of the Internet that has been developed. Or lastly, you can get the "premium package" which will give you access to the entire Internet, including the millions of websites that are still chugging along on the "old Internet".

Wouldn't that be great?

Of course not.

Isn't it obvious what would happen?

The millions of websites that are unwilling or unable to pay the exorbitant "tolls" to get on the new blazing fast version of the Internet would rapidly start losing traffic and would eventually fizzle out almost altogether.

After all, in this day and age who is going to stick with technology that is slow and outdated?

For example, how many people still use "dial-up" anymore? There are a few, but it is just not that many.

For years, the big Internet companies have been dreaming of getting permission to sell access to an Internet "fast lane" to the highest bidder. The potential profits to be had are staggering.

But right now there is one thing that stands in the way of those profits and that must be eliminated according to them.

Net neutrality.

Up until now, any information sent over the Internet has been treated more or less equally. When a data packet enters the Internet, it is directed to its destination regardless of the identity of the customer or the importance of the information.

But now some very powerful interests want to change all that. The idea is to have the Internet much more closely resemble cable television.

In particular, a recent agreement regarding net neutrality between Google and Verizon is causing alarm among Internet users.

The following is how The Daily Mail described the recent agreement between Google and Verizon....

Technology giants Google and Verizon have today paved the way for a future 'two-tier' internet in which companies can pay extra to make sure their services get through.

Whenever anyone starts using phrases like "pay extra" when it comes to access to the Internet, alarm bells should start going off in your head.

Once we start going down that road, the big media companies with the deep pockets will do all they can to gain a "competitive" advantage.

The future of the Internet is at stake. Are we going to continue to have a free and open Internet with millions of choices, or are we going to have an Internet dominated by "toll roads" where there are only a few thousand choices which are all tightly controlled by the giant media conglomerates?

Already, there is a lot of talk about the new "high bandwidth" Internet that is coming.

According to The Daily Mail, even Verizon's CEO admits that the agreement between his firm and Google would create a "separate" high bandwidth Internet....

The new high bandwidth internet would remain separate from the normal public internet and would probably include services such as healthcare and 3D video and gaming, according to Verizon's chief executive, Ivan Seidenberg.

So what do you think is eventually going to happen if a new "high bandwith Internet" is set up?

Well, everyone will want to move over to it of course.

And that is exactly the idea.

Over the past several years, the big media conglomerates that dominate television, newspapers, radio, movies and even video games have come to realize that they have completely and totally lost control over the Internet.

The Internet has given the common man a voice in the world, and it is probably the greatest breakthrough for the free flow of information since the printing press was invented.

But to the big media conglomerates there is a big problem.

They have lost their monopoly.

People are not forced to come to them for their news and entertainment anymore.

The rise of the alternative media has been one of the most incredible stories of this past decade, and today information flows more freely around the globe than ever before.

But now there are some very powerful corporate interests that would like to force alternative websites, radio programs and television shows to shut down for good.

They realize that they need to make their move quickly, because we are rapidly approaching a critical turning point for the Internet.

You see, the truth is that virtually all communications will eventually go through the Internet. Phone service, television service and Internet access are rapidly merging into one.

The battle for control over this media pipeline we call the Internet is only going to heat up even more. Literally trillions of dollars will be made or lost depending on the direction that the Internet takes in the years ahead.

So will we allow the Internet to become a network of private toll roads where the big media conglomerates control what we see and hear and think?

Or will we stand up and demand that the Internet remain a free and neutral platform where information flows freely and where we can all have our say?

As for me, I choose to stand on the side of Internet freedom.

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

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.
By Scott Thill, AlterNet
Posted on August 25, 2010

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."

The ramifications of allowing dumb-pipe telcos like AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and others to instead provide tiered services -- with the so-called "public Internet," no doubt slowed to a crawl, firmly stashed at the bottom of that traffic hierarchy -- is simply insane. It would be like your city allowing businesses, local and otherwise, to determine which blocks of your homeward commute become toll roads. Sure, one road would be spared in the interest of the public good, and it would be claustrophobically crowded with anyone and everyone who decided against paying the toll because of economic hardship, because of philosophical disagreement, because of whatever.

"The greatest danger of the fast lane is that it completely changes competition on the net," Wu explained in a New York Times roundtable on Google and Verizon's sweetheart deal. "The advantage goes not to the firm that's actually the best, but the one that makes the best deal with AT&T, Verizon, or Comcast. Had there been a two-tier Internet in 1995, likely, Barnes and Noble would have destroyed Amazon, Microsoft Search would have beaten out Google, Skype would have never gotten started -- the list goes on and on. We'd all be the losers."

Or as IO9's Annalee Newitz put it: "Googlezon has succeeded in creating a caste system in the online world, and the public is the lowest caste of all." Cue Jon Stewart's disturbing truth. No laugh track please.

But is there an option available to the public, other than pressuring Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski to join his FCC colleagues Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn -- as well as level-headed politicians like Al Franken, Alan Grayson and others -- in their efforts to reclassify broadband as a communications service, a political no-brainer if there ever was one? After all, the FCC has already filed a plan to do just that, but has yet to move on it, although with Copps, Clyburn and Genachowski on board it has the needed votes. It seems the easiest place to start, although Grayson has rightly complained that the whole debacle "doesn't inspire confidence that the FCC can hold the line against telecom and cable companies, when those companies have something else in mind."

Because of this collusion -- empowered by an April federal court ruling, spearheaded by Clinton-appointed judge David S. Tatel, declaring that the FCC lacks Internet regulatory authority and needs specific permission from Congress to get it -- open-spectrum and other utopian proponents and are hamstrung by cold, economic reality. Tatel's pointed barb that FCC and congressional "policy proposals" about network neutrality or regulatory authority "are just that -- statements of policy…not delegations of regulatory authority" was a not-subtle reminder that the FCC's only play is to get Congress to step up and give it the power it pretends it has. But instead of doing just that, Genachowski has wasted time diving back and forth between the boardrooms of Microsoft, AT&T and other heavyweights to forge a corporate consensus. But feel his pain: Congress couldn't pass a football in the name of the public good these days. Getting them to agree that the FCC should be able to regulate AT&T's management of its networks -- after asking the company to spy like crazy on Americans -- is beyond a non-starter.

As Google and Verizon made clear in their proposal, emboldening a publicly engineered alternative wireless Internet is going to be hard to do when indispensably well-meaning spectrum reformers like Gigi Sohn and Laurie Racine's nonprofit Public Knowledge are counting on both telco goodwill and congressional power. Public Knowledge's first principles on open spectrum demands that "bidders for half of the spectrum to make access to that spectrum available to third parties at wholesale rates" and respect consumers' "right to use any equipment, content, application or service on a non-discriminatory basis without interference." Good luck enforcing that without FCC regulatory authority.

Everything comes down to parsing the signals. At last report, more than half of current wifi hotspots are free; a 12 percent increase from the first quarter of 2010. A comparative deluge of broadband-enabled devices are on the way, a thankful development for those who are tired of having to connect their DVD players, sound systems, television, computers and phone with nearly obsolete cables. The logical pattern leads forward into a future littered with free, fast Internet connections, right? Wrong.

In the absence of neutral, enforceable legislation, who controls the spectrum controls the wireless world. And right now, the spectrum is seen as a revenue stream by the FCC: The controversial 2008 spectrum auction raised nearly $20 billion from the usual suspects like Verizon and AT&T, who carved up America's wireless empire for themselves and left crumbs for the rest. (Proceeds from the auction, according to the FCC, were transferred to the U.S. Treasury to be used for the nation's digital television transition efforts, but given Treasury's economic malfeasance, who knows where that $20 billion went?) And the throttling wasn't far behind: Earlier this year, Genachowski proposed the "Mobile Future Auction" in an effort to encourage television broadcasters to stop hoarding unused spectrum, which is what monopolies routinely do when they own it.

"The highly valuable spectrum currently allocated for broadcast television is not being used efficiently," Genachowski said. "Indeed, much is not being used at all."

Freeing up that wireless, radio, television and microwave spectrum, whether through voter initiative or anti-capitalist hacking, should be the prime objective of any net neutrality advocate or official. Even nationalization shouldn't be off the table; in fact, it should probably be at the head of it. Because it is pure folly to rely on corporations looking to carve the Internet into variously monetized thoroughfares to provide unrestricted access, although the airwaves belong to the same public it has been fleecing for decades.

As civilization as we know it fully enters the wireless 21st century, setting aside net neutrality provisions only for the wireline world, as Google and Verizon have proposed, is both like naming technocratic educational downsizing No Child Left Behind and actually expecting it to work. Without a government-sponsored open spectrum available without restriction to the public, which can also choose become a living broadcaster in its own right, net neutrality will remain but a theory in search of an application.

Even if the FCC decides to reclassify broadband, we have already learned from the evolution of the communications industry that, when left unregulated, it trends toward consolidation and complexity rather than diversification and simplicity. We are in the early stages of the 21st century with what seems like unlimited capacity, pardon the pun, for tremendous connectivity and capitalization. But instead we're watching the same corporations squeeze us dry of options and alternatives. And until advances in multi-node mesh networking and similarly minded wireless workarounds put the lie to mounting warnings of a suspicious spectrum crunch, we're left with the usual options: Crawl up Congress' lazy ass and make net neutrality more important than Muslim mosque controversies, or economically punish service and content providers like AT&T, Verizon and Google for their selfish behavior. (Killing off redundant landline and wireless accounts would be a good start.)

Google already got the message after publicly selling out its corporate slogan "Don't Be Evil," while Verizon got a pass because everyone already knows telcos are evil incarnate. But pressure must be kept on Google, telcos, the FCC and the Obama administration to make net neutrality an election issue. Otherwise, we're all going to wake up one day and find that the internet has a carpool lane for the upper class, and we're not invited unless we're willing to cough up our cash and our principles.

Verizon & Google Want to Kill the Open Internet--Rep. Alan Grayson

Media Mogul Confirms Their Bad Intentions
Google's market capitalization is $150 billion. Verizon's is $85 billion. They don't care about our wellbeing. Even if one of them tells us it won't "be evil."
By Rep. Alan Grayson, AlterNet
Posted on August 20, 2010

"[Barry] Diller asserted that the Google-Verizon proposal "doesn't preserve 'net neutrality,' full stop, or anything like it." Asked if other media executives were staying quiet because they stand to gain from a less open Internet, he said simply, "Yes."" New York Times, August 12, 2010

The Verizon-Google Net Neutrality Proposal begins by stating that "Google and Verizon have been working together to find ways to preserve the open Internet." Well, that's nice. Imagine what they would have come up with if they had been trying to kill off the open Internet.

Actually, you don't have to imagine it. Because that's what this is. An effort to kill off the open Internet.

Much of the coverage of the Verizon-Google Proposal has focused on only one of the proposal's many problems: the fact that the proposal allows wireless broadband carriers -- like, say, Verizon, for instance -- to discriminate in handling Internet traffic in any manner they choose. They can charge content providers, they can block content providers, and they can slow down content providers, just as they please. That sure doesn't sound "neutral."

We've already seen examples of political censorship over mobile networks. In 2007, Verizon refused to run a pro-choice text message from advocacy group NARAL, due to its supposedly 'unsavory' nature. Yes, this happened; yes, this kind of censorship would be continue to be legal under the Google-Verizon deal; and yes, Google, this is evil.

But the Verizon-Google Proposal allows almost as much latitude to other internet carriers, like cable and DSL carriers. Under the heading "Network Management," all carriers can "engage in reasonable network management," which "includes any technically sound practice" (which means what?). And it specifically includes the power to "prioritize general classes or types of Internet traffic, based on latency." The term "latency" means delays in downloading, from carrying video files and such. So if you want video, and YouTube won't pay Verizon to provide it, then Verizon can "prioritize" other traffic. And then your two-minute video will take two hours to see. And let's say you want to start a new website that offers video -- good luck getting through to Verizon's customer service department, to have Verizon place it in the right 'tier' of Verizon's internet service. In my experience, customer service requests have extraordinarily high "latency."

Furthermore, under the heading "Non-Discrimination Requirement" (that sounds promising!), wireline carriers cannot engage in "undue discrimination." "Undue discrimination!" What, exactly, is "due" discrimination? And even then, the presumption of non-discrimination "could be rebutted."

And if a carrier somehow manages to run afoul of these absurdly loose standards, the FCC doesn't even have the power to act, unless someone actually finds out about the discrimination, complains about it, and can prove it. And even then, the Verizon-Google Proposal limits the penalty to $2 million.

Do you happen to know what Verizon's revenue is every 10 minutes? It's . . . $2 million. That's right. The maximum fine is equal to what Verizon takes in every 10 minutes.

Do we laugh? Or do we cry?

This would give Verizon -- and every other large internet carrier -- the equivalent of a cheap "put" option on every company with an internet-based product or service. For a mere $2 million, Verizon could secretly block (or just mess with) the internet content of a billion-dollar company, destroying its market value overnight. And, perhaps, sending those customers to Verizon's rival product or service.

Now, I really would like to believe that the FCC can deliver on guaranteeing net neutrality. But remember, this 'proposal' came after months of secret, closed-door meetings with the FCC, spurred by Chairman Julius Genachowski, that sought an industry- brokered deal along the lines of the Verizon-Google Proposal. And when the proposal was issued, net neutrality's longtime ally, Commissioner Michael Copps, responded as follows: "Some will claim this announcement moves the discussion forward. That's one of its many problems."

When I see our most stalwart friend on the commission coming out against a deal shepherded by the Chairman, it doesn't inspire confidence that the FCC can hold the line against telecom and cable companies, when those companies have something else in mind.

Google's market capitalization is $150 billion. Verizon's is $85 billion. They don't care about our wellbeing. Never have, never will. Even if one of them tells us it won't "be evil."

It's time for the FCC to step up. It's time for Congress to step up. It's time for all of us to step up. We need for the law to protect the internet: No discrimination in pricing or in service. No self-regulation by corporate titans. And no blessing of corrupt deals at the FCC.

And we need all citizens to engage, to be vigilant. Remember, no one in Big Business has an interest in keeping this medium open to all of us. The only interest that wants to keep the internet open and free, for you and me, is you and me.

So if you care about a free and open internet, uncensored by Big Business, then look toward the horizon. A storm is brewing. There's a hard rain coming.

Alan Grayson is congressman for Florida's 8th District.

Congress Members Deliver Smackdown to Google and Verizon over Net Neutrality (2 stories)

by Preston Gralla | Tuesday, August 17, 2010 by ComputerWorld

Four Democratic congressmen have joined together to denounce a Google-Verizon proposal that they believe will spell the death of net neutrality. They've written to the head of the FCC, asking that he act soon, and not allow "two large communications companies with a vested interest in the outcome" to decide the Internet's future.

The congressmen are all on the House Energy and Commerce committee --- Ed Markey (D-MA), Mike Doyle (D-PA), Jay Inslee (D-WA), and Anna Eshoo (D-CA). Markey has a long-time interest in telecommunications issues, is the author of H.R. 3458, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act and has long been a leading voice for net neutrality.

The Congressmen wrote the letter to Julius Genachowski, the chairman of the FCC. They're asking the FCC to act now to preserve net neutrality, and specifically criticize key points of the Google-Verizon proposal. (You can download the letter as a PDF here.)

As I've written in a previous blog, the Google-Verizon proposal would hasten the death of net neutrality in several ways. First is that the companies are asking that wireless service be excluded from net neutrality rules.

The congressmen, in no uncertain terms, disagree. They write:

"Exclusion of wireless services from open Internet requirements could widen the digital divide by establishing a substandard, less open experience for traditionally underserved regions and demographic groups that may more often need to access or choose to access the Internet on a mobile device. Moreover, such inconsistent principles could confuse consumers, who would have different and uneven experiences depending solely on the connection that their devices might use to reach the Internet. An Internet framework excluding wireless from important consumer safeguards could impede attainment of national broadband goals, while lessening the potential for wireless platforms to serve unserved and underserved areas."

The other part of the proposal that would help kill net neutrality is a vague broad loophole for "additional or differentiated services" or managed services that providers might want to offer. What are these managed services? No one seems to know.

The congressmen take dead aim at that as well. They warn that "Broad 'managed services' exceptions would swallow open Internet rules" and go on to say:

"An overbroad definition of the proposed 'managed services" category would sap the vitality and stunt the growth of the Internet...By undermining competition and the value of the open Internet, managed services could have significantly negative consequences for consumers and commercial enterprise."

The congressmen want the FCC to establish rules to guarantee that there will be net neutrality and an open Internet. They take direct aim at Google and Verizon, writing that:

"Rather than expansion upon a proposal by two large communications companies with a vested interest in the outcome, formal FCC action is needed."

Why are the congressmen asking the FCC to act, and to act now? Because they know that Congress won't act. As ars technica points out, "Congress has been quite direct in saying that it has no plans to act." That's because Republican are against a net neutrality proposal, and a number of Democrats are against it as well. So as a practical matter, there simply aren't enough votes to pass a net neutrality law.

So now it's up to the FCC. Will Google and Verizon be able to trump that agency? The answer will go a long way toward determining whether the Internet stays open or not.

***

Democrats push for FCC power over Internet 
by Declan McCullagh  |  August 17, 2010

A group of four Democratic politicians claims that a proposal announced last week by Google and Verizon does not give the federal government enough authority to regulate the Internet.

The companies' Net neutrality proposal does not grant the Federal Communications Commission sufficient "oversight authority" and should permit the agency to slap new regulations on wireless services, the politicians said in a letter on Monday.

It was addressed to FCC chairman Julius Genachowski, a fellow Democrat, who has been left in an awkward position after a federal appeals court slapped down the agency's attempt to punish Comcast.

Since that ruling, liberal interest groups have been lobbying Genachowski for a new set of regulations, even though a majority of members of the U.S. Congress has opposed the idea. The Google-Verizon framework--which is not formal legislation but instead is a set of concepts--represents the companies' attempt to craft a workable compromise and bring some finality to the often-chaotic discussions of what regulations could be imposed on tomorrow's Internet.

Monday's letter, drafted by Rep. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, says the idea of curbing FCC authority over wireless services "could widen the digital divide by establishing a substandard, less open experience for traditionally underserved regions and demographic groups that may more often need to access or choose to access the Internet on a mobile device."

"The FCC must have oversight authority for broadband access services," the letter said.

It also was signed by Anna Eshoo, whose district includes Palo Alto, Calif., Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania, and Jay Inslee of Washington state.

Because of the breadth of opposition in Congress to new, wide-ranging Net neutrality rules, the letter is intended to be mostly symbolic by lending visible support to a Democrat-controlled FCC. (Some Republicans already have been proposing preemptive legislation to halt what they call an FCC power grab.)

A secondary effect likely will be to rally the special interest groups that have been vocal in condemning the Google-Verizon proposal. Joel Kelsey, political adviser for Free Press, worries that it might "transform the free and open Internet into a closed platform like cable television," and activist groups (including some that refocused their anti-war protesting) showed up in front of the Googleplex last week.

AT&T claims net neutrality is oppressive

(Oh, poor oppressed multinational corporation! I'm sure the billions of dollars they make once net neutrality is dead will help them forget...--jef)

***

AT&T Says that wireless is different

By Lawrence Latif

Mon Aug 16 2010

US TELECOM AT&T has come out in support of Google's contention that wireless communications are different than wireline Internet services.

Last week Google and Verizon agreed on a deal that left wireless communications free to be carved up by telecoms operators and tiered for commercial exploitation. Given Google's stance as a supporter of net neutrality, it has faced widespread criticism and even had 100 or so demonstrators outside its doors claiming that it had sold out.

Google defended its deal with Verizon by saying that its users simply misunderstood technology and that wireless was somehow different from wired technology. It comes as no big surprise that AT&T has also adopted this patronising position to concur with Google and Verizon, its largest competitor.

The firm claimed that even long term evolution (LTE) networks have only a fraction of the bandwidth found in fibre-optic networks. It also claims that the wireless network companies often "split cells" by installing new towers, but that is restricted by local authorities.

AT&T has come up with a three point action plan that includes the deployment of HSPA+ and LTE networks, using WiFi and microcells and installing even more cell towers.

AT&T said that policy makers can help by "protecting wireless broadband networks from onerous new net neutrality regulations", which it claims is "vital to the continued growth of the industry". Or in other words, net neutrality will limit the profits it can extract from wireless services.

The bare-faced cheek of the company calling net neutrality 'onerous' is a disgrace and simply goes to show how much AT&T and the like care for their paying customers. As we and many others had predicted, Google's deal with Verizon has opened the floodgates for telecoms operators to make ridiculous claims in order to destroy net neutrality and promote their own agenda of what AT&T termed 'continued growth'.

It should also be noted that AT&T's statement made no reference to how its network performance affects its subscribers. Rather it reads like a sob story, except that it's being told by a company that raked in $123 billion in revenues and about 12.5 billion profit last year alone. µ

What the Google/Verizon Deal Means for Net Neutrality – and You

This agreement brings the prospect of a tiered internet closer, with fast premium services prioritised over the 'public internet'
by Mehan Jayasuriya | Friday, August 13, 2010 by The Guardian/UK

During the last decade, a battle has been brewing here in the United States. The outcome of this battle could decide who will ultimately control the internet – large corporations or internet users.

The internet was designed to respect the so-called "end-to-end" principle, which places control at the ends of the network with users and ensures that all traffic is treated equally. The upholding of this principle has come to be known as "net neutrality", which has been the status quo for as long as the internet has existed. But as the internet has grown to become the 21st century's most powerful engine for economic growth, internet service providers (ISPs), the middlemen of the internet, have begun greedily eyeing the web, hoping to wring additional fees out of users and content providers alike by instituting a tiered system similar to that of pay TV.

During the last three years, this fight has begun to come to a head. In 2007, the largest American ISP, Comcast, began to block its users from using the BitTorrent file transfer protocol. In 2008, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the government body that is meant to oversee such matters, ordered the company to stop. In 2010, a court overturned that decision, contending that the FCC did not have the legal authority necessary to punish Comcast. In the wake of this decision and the FCC's subsequent existential crisis, large corporations have begun to devise their own rules. While there's nothing stopping the FCC from placing its authority on firm legal ground, the agency is under tremendous pressure from ISPs to not act.

This week's traffic prioritisation agreement between Google and Verizon (another one of the largest providers in the US) serves as a prime example of what will happen in the absence of clear rules of the road for ISPs. Two large companies have negotiated in private and have reached an agreement on how internet traffic should be managed.

On the surface, this agreement doesn't look too nefarious. Verizon has agreed to respect the end-to-end principle on its wired networks and Google has reiterated its commitment to net neutrality. However, the proposal specifically excludes wireless internet services. The agreement also proposes that so-called "managed services" on the wired network – essentially fast lanes carved out of the bandwidth currently used by the internet – be exempt from any rules that govern the web.

Finally, and perhaps most troubling, Google and Verizon have suggested that industry-led advisery groups write the rules for what's left of the internet. In matters of consumer protection and nondiscrimination, the FCC's actions would be subject to approval by the very companies that the agency is meant to oversee.

It's clear why this proposal is attractive to Google and Verizon. With net neutrality out of the picture, Verizon would be free to extract additional fees from content providers and users in exchange for access to the fast lanes. Google is large enough that it could afford to pay these fees, thereby assuring speedy delivery of its content and a competitive advantage.

But what about the rest of us? What will the internet look like if Google and Verizon's vision of the future is allowed to come to pass?

First off, the experience of accessing the web via a mobile device could change dramatically. Content from the largest companies – Google, Microsoft, Sony, Disney – might load quickly while independently produced content would load slowly. For an additional fee, you might be granted access to special "services" such as streaming video, online gaming and VoIP, all of which work just fine on today's internet. However, if you could not afford to pay for access to these fast lanes, your ability to engage in high-bandwidth activities would suffer, as these new managed services would receive priority over the so-called "public internet". And what would happen if, say, you noticed that your ISP was blocking your BitTorrent traffic? You could file a complaint with the appropriate government agency, but given the new rules, it is unlikely that the authorities would take any action.

As it stands, the Google/Verizon agreement is little more than a deal between two large corporations. It is unenforceable, non-binding and at present has little bearing on the rest of the industry. However, Google and Verizon hope that Congress will look to their agreement as a model for net neutrality legislation. These companies are proposing a regime where they write and enforce the rules of the road for the web. Are we willing to trust that the middlemen of the internet will act in the public's interest? Or do we want a clear, enforceable set of rules that ensures the internet remains a level playing field for all?

Google-Verizon Pact: It Gets Worse

End of the Internet? 
by Craig Aaron | Tuesday, August 10, 2010 by CommonDreams.org

So Google and Verizon went public Monday with their "policy framework" -- better known as the pact to end the Internet as we know it.

News of this deal broke this week, sparking a public outcry that's seen hundreds of thousands of Internet users calling on Google to live up to its "Don't Be Evil" pledge.

But cut through the platitudes the two companies (Googizon, anyone?) offered on Monday's press call, and you'll find this deal is even worse than advertised.

The proposal is one massive loophole that sets the stage for the corporate takeover of the Internet.

Real Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers can't discriminate between different kinds of online content and applications. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies. It's what makes sure the next Google, out there in a garage somewhere, has just as good a chance as any giant corporate behemoth to find its audience and thrive online.

What Google and Verizon are proposing is fake Net Neutrality. You can read their framework for yourself here or go here to see Google twisting itself in knots about this suddenly "thorny issue." But here are the basics of what the two companies are proposing:

1. Under their proposal, there would be no Net Neutrality on wireless networks -- meaning anything goes, from blocking websites and applications to pay-for-priority treatment.
2. Their proposed standard for "non-discrimination" on wired networks is so weak that actions like Comcast's widely denounced blocking of BitTorrent would be allowed.
3. The deal would let ISPs like Verizon -- instead of Internet users like you -- decide which applications deserve the best quality of service. That's not the way the Internet has ever worked, and it threatens to close the door on tomorrow's innovative applications. (If RealPlayer had been favored a few years ago, would we ever have gotten YouTube?)
4. The deal would allow ISPs to effectively split the Internet into "two pipes" -- one of which would be reserved for "managed services," a pay-for-play platform for content and applications. This is the proverbial toll road on the information superhighway, a fast lane reserved for the select few, while the rest of us are stuck on the cyber-equivalent of a winding dirt road.
5. The pact proposes to turn the Federal Communications Commission into a toothless watchdog, left fruitlessly chasing consumer complaints but unable to make rules of its own. Instead, it would leave it up to unaccountable (and almost surely industry-controlled) third parties to decide what the rules should be.

If there's a silver lining in this whole fiasco it's that, last I checked anyway, it wasn't up to Google and Verizon to write the rules. That's why we have Congress and the FCC.

Certainly by now we should have learned -- from AIG, Massey Energy, BP, you name it -- what happens when we let big companies regulate themselves or hope they'll do the right thing.

We need the FCC -- with the backing of Congress and President Obama -- to step and do the hard work of governing. That means restoring the FCC's authority to protect Internet users and safeguarding real Net Neutrality once and for all.

Such a move might not be popular on Wall Street or even in certain corners of Silicon Valley, but it's the kind of leadership the public needs right now.

Google Wants to Destroy the Internet That Made It So Rich

Google is pushing to place tollbooths on the Internet that are in nobody's interest but Verizon's and other decrepit companies like AT&T.
By Adam Green, AlterNet
Posted on August 9, 2010

Yesterday I went on a media conference call with Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg.

They announced a new policy recommendation that would kill the Internet as we know it, if implemented by FCC Chair Julius Genokowski and other policy makers.

The Google/Verizon deal (also posted online) basically says:

• The old "wireline" Internet that will be irrelevant in a few years? We propose a "new, enforceable prohibition against discriminatory practices" on that.
• New "wireless services" (aka the entire future of the Internet)? No equivalent nondiscrimination rules for that, but we'll "create enforceable transparency rules." That way, as Americans lose access to the free and open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away.
• Just in case "wireless services" doesn't encompass the entire future of the Internet, a new class of "new services" is envisioned, which Schmidt and Seidenberg actively differentiated from "the public Internet." Basically, through private contracting, big corporations could deal directly with the Verizons and AT&Ts of the world to create the next YouTube, maybe dangle it without discrimination to the public just long enough for us to be hooked, and then discriminate like hell over it. But don't worry, the FCC will "monitor the development of these services."

Google, a company that I've long admired and currently hold thousands of dollars of stock in, just "went evil."

That's why over 300,000 Americans have signed an open letter telling Google "don't be evil" -- protect Net Neutrality and the Internet's level playing field. You can sign here.

This letter was launched last week by 5 groups that use the Internet to organize millions of Americans around issues, and are now using the Internet to save the Internet itself -- Free Press, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, MoveOn, Credo Action, and ColorOfChange.

Why did Google cut this absurd deal, one that dramatically hurts its credibility in the online space?

We know why Verizon did it. Verizon is a decrepit old company that made massive investments in old landline technology and is coming face-to-face with market irrelevance. In a properly functioning marketplace, Verizon would soon crumble and die and be replaced by modern-day innovators. The only way for them to stay in business is to block innovation and to put tollbooths on the Internet that are in nobody's interest but Verizon's and other decrepit companies like AT&T.

There is no reason in the world for Google, which has made smart investments in the future, to find common ground with Verizon on the issue of Internet openness. None. Zero. Zilch. The deal is unneeded, uncalled for, and incompatible with Google's "don't be evil" mantra.

Google's decision to cut a deal with Verizon wreaks of either impatience or fear. Either Google wasn't willing to wait for the Verizons of the world to crumble and die -- and therefore moved it's own business development timeline up 5 or 10 years at the expense of the entire American public. Or, Google feared doing the dirty work that comes with being a leader -- despite launching a "Google Fiber for Communities" program that competes head-to-head with the decrepit incumbents, Google feared actually having to fulfil their potential to defeat the bad guys.

So, they cut a deal with the bad guys. And they're now asking the public to accept two Internet experiences -- a great experience for the old Internet that will soon cease to exist, and an experience filled with discrimination and lack of a level playing field for the entire future of the Internet.

Google and Verizon Announce Net Neutrality Proposal

By MIGUEL HELFT

4:09 p.m. | Updated Our article on this news has been posted.

Google and Verizon held a conference call with the news media to discuss a joint proposal on net neutrality issues. Details in our live-blogging updates below, with the most recent updates at the top.

2:07 P.M. |Wrapping Up and a Reaction

The press conference concludes. First reactions from net neutrality advocates appear to be mixed. In a statement, Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior vice president and policy director at the Media Access Project, said: “The plan raises as many questions as it answers. For example, it does not disclose the standard to be used in resolving consumer complaints. One question that the plan does definitively answer is that the non-discrimination proposal would never apply to wireless. That alone makes this arrangement a non-starter.”

2:01 P.M. |On New Services

Another question is asked about what is different about these new services that would not be on the Internet. Mr. Seidenberg mentions the FiOS TV service as an example.

Asked about other examples of new entertainment services, Mr. Seidenberg says that for example the Metropolitan Opera may want to broadcast its entire archive in 3-D, and they may choose do so over a new type of service.

Mr. Schmidt reiterates: “This is not a deal. This is a joint policy announcement.” He says that Google and Verizon are committed to playing by these rules.

(This is the relevant portion of the companies’ announcement: “Fifth, we want the broadband infrastructure to be a platform for innovation. Therefore, our proposal would allow broadband providers to offer additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services (such as Verizon’s FiOS TV) offered today. This means that broadband providers can work with other players to develop new services. It is too soon to predict how these new services will develop, but examples might include health care monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services, or new entertainment and gaming options. Our proposal also includes safeguards to ensure that such online services must be distinguishable from traditional broadband Internet access services and are not designed to circumvent the rules. The FCC would also monitor the development of these services to make sure they don’t interfere with the continued development of Internet access services.”)

1:55 P.M. |No Business Deal

A question is asked about whether the companies ran this proposal by the F.C.C. and whether there is a business arrangement between the two companies that is behind this announcement.

Mr. Schmidt: “There is no business arrangement.” He says any reports that say there is an arrangement are false and misleading. He also says that they have run this by the F.C.C.

Mr. Seidenberg emphasizes that there is no business deal and that this is merely a proposal to move the policy debate forward.

1:53 P.M. |Investment Incentives

Mr. Schmidt adds that there would be an incentive for carriers to continue investing in the “open Internet” since that’s what customers want. He also reiterates that YouTube and other Google services would remain on the open Internet, not on one of the new paid and prioritized channels.

1:50 P.M. |Prioritizing Traffic

Mr. Seidenberg fields a question about the distinction between the neutral public Internet and the new services that could be prioritized. “Under the principles, there is no prioritization of traffic that comes from Google over the Internet, period,” he said. It is not entirely clear how these new services would work, but Mr. Schmidt said that Google has no plans to offer any of these enhanced services.

Mr. Seidenberg said that carriers would add enough capacity so that none of the new services would degrade their ability to deliver existing Internet services.

1:44 P.M. |Verizon’s Take

Ivan Seidenberg takes over. He says that he agrees with the rules outlined by Mr. Schmidt but that carriers should be able to offer new types of services that are not part of the open Internet, like sophisticated health care monitoring systems or new forms of entertainment. He says these new services should not be used to circumvent the kinds of rules they are proposing.

Wireless services would be exempt from major net neutrality rules, but carriers would be required to be transparent about what they do in terms of managing traffic.

Verizon will post these principles on its Web site and plans to abide by them.

Question and answers now.

1:41 P.M. |Some Details

Highlights: Mr. Schmidt recommends principles that allow for enforcing net neutrality rules on landline communications. He also calls for more enforceable rules and more transparency from carriers.

A post about this is up on the Google Public Policy Blog.

1:39 P.M. |A New Proposal

They are releasing a detailed joint policy proposal.

Mr. Schmidt says Google has benefited from an open Internet. “More importantly, an open Internet allows for the next Google to be created.” He adds that just about everything that has been in the press on this topic recently was completely wrong.

1:37 P.M. |Google-Verizon Call Begins

Eric Schmidt and Ivan Seidenberg are leading the conference call. Mr. Schmidt says the two companies spent a long time trying to find common ground. He was pleasantly surprised that there was a lot of common ground. He says the two companies are dependent upon each other.

Google-Verizon NN pact riddled with gaping loopholes

By Matthew Lasar | Ars Technica | Aug. 9, 2010

Even before Google and Verizon published their sweeping new Internet proposals for Congress, the net neutrality troops were out in force against the alliance.

"DON'T BE EVIL," proclaimed the Monday morning banner headline announcing the delivery of a petition signed by 300,000 people urging the search engine giant to back away from its alliance with Verizon.

"Google has always presented itself as a different kind of corporate entity," warned Justin Ruben, executive director of MoveOn.org. "The fact that they are involved in a deal that would kill Internet freedom directly contradicts this image. We hope that Google will reconsider before they are seen as just another giant corporation out to make a buck regardless of the consequence."

Shortly after the plan was unveiled, Public Knowledge damned it as a package that "does almost nothing to preserve an open Internet."

But we don't need these press releases to report the obvious. The Google/Verizon manifesto claims to preserve "transparency" on the 'Net, but the only really transparent thing about the plan is that it is packed with so many loopholes, a deep packet inspection powered P2P blocker the size of an M1 Abrams tank could roll through it without disturbing a telco executive's nap.

Meaningful harm

Sure, the Google/Verizon press release proclaims that the proposal means that "for the first time, wireline broadband providers would not be able to discriminate against or prioritize lawful Internet content, applications or services in a way that causes harm to users or competition."

But the legislative document itself says the following (all italics are ours):

"In providing broadband Internet access service, a provider would be prohibited from engaging in undue discrimination against any lawful Internet content, application, or service in a manner that causes meaningful harm to competition or to users."

So who is going to decide what kind of harm is "meaningful"? Presumably the Federal Communications Commission, which gets to issue $2 million fines—except that under this plan the agency would enforce its components "through case-by-case adjudication, but would have no rulemaking authority with respect to those provisions."

"Parties would be encouraged to use nongovernmental dispute resolution processes established by independent, widely-recognized Internet community governance initiatives," the proposal continues, "and the FCC would be directed to give appropriate deference to decisions or advisory opinions of such groups."

In other words, some kind of organization dominated by Google and Verizon would decide what constitutes "meaningful harm," and the FCC would do what it tells them to do.

Rebut me

And yes, the "new nondiscrimination principle" the companies advocate "includes a presumption against prioritization of Internet traffic—including paid prioritization."

Except when it doesn't.

"Prioritization of Internet traffic would be presumed inconsistent with the non-discrimination standard, but the presumption could be rebutted," the fine print says.

And the scheme's definition of "reasonable network practices" includes "any technically sound practice... to address traffic that is unwanted by or harmful to users, the provider's network, or the Internet..." and... "to prioritize general classes or types of Internet traffic, based on latency; or otherwise to manage the daily operation of its network."

We're sorry, but we're seeing prioritization arrangements all over this language—from Comcast's plain old P2P blocking, which was clearly "unwanted" by that provider's network, to Cox cable's traffic prioritization experiment, in which the company notified users that "less time-sensitive traffic, such as file uploads, peer-to-peer and Usenet newsgroups," would be delayed during periods of congestion.

And we haven't even gotten to this canyon-sized loophole in the Verizon/Google plan:

A provider that offers a broadband Internet access service complying with the above principles could offer any other additional or differentiated services. Such other services would have to be distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband Internet access service, but could make use of or access Internet content, applications or services and could include traffic prioritization.

The FCC would be allowed to publish an annual survey "on the effect of these additional services" and "immediately report if it finds at any time that these services threaten the meaningful availability of broadband Internet access services or have been devised or promoted in a manner designed to evade these consumer protections."

But what exactly will these "additional or differentiated" services that ISPs could charge content providers extra cash for be? IP Video? The latest, coolest live conferencing app?

And to whom would the Commission "report"? We don't know. But again, since the proposal forbids the FCC from making any rules, we fear that the complaint will go to Verizon and Google and the rest of the winners circle, who will decide what these exemptible services will be, then give the Commission its marching orders.

Transparency except...

Finally, the Verizon/Google plan has a mechanism for transparency. "Providers of broadband Internet access service would be required to disclose accurate and relevant information in plain language about the characteristics and capabilities of their offerings, their broadband network management, and other practices necessary for consumers and other users to make informed choices..."

...which is the sole part of the whole shebang to which Verizon Wireless or any other wireless provider would have to adhere:

"Because of the unique technical and operational characteristics of wireless networks, and the competitive and still-developing nature of wireless broadband services, only the transparency principle would apply to wireless broadband at this time."

Decision time

Let's not forget something here—wireless broadband is the future. The FCC's National Broadband Plan cites studies projecting that with the next five years, the quantity of mobile data traffic in North America will jump by a factor 20 to 40 times the amount measured in 2009.

Agree or disagree about net neutrality, but surely nondiscrimination rules that do not cover wireless broadband delivery systems will become meaningless as 4G sweeps the country and most mobiles become application-packed smartphone devices.

As we write this, our Inbox continues to fill with outrage over the plan. Some praise came from the Technology Policy Institute.

"In my view, new regulation is not needed to preserve the open Internet," declared its president Thomas Lenard. "Nevertheless, the Verizon-Google proposal has to be viewed as a serious and constructive effort to address the policy impasse that the FCC has created for itself."

We asked the FCC for comment on the proposal. "Decline to comment at this time," came the response.

But FCC Commissioner Michael Copps has posted the following on the agency's site.

"Some will claim this announcement moves the discussion forward," Copps warned. "That's one of its many problems. It is time to move a decision forward—a decision to reassert FCC authority over broadband telecommunications, to guarantee an open Internet now and forever, and to put the interests of consumers in front of the interests of giant corporations."