FCC Wants to Give Corporations Their Own Internet

And now the rights of corporate ownership officially supercede those of individual citizens. this isn't new, but the courts and the bureaucracy are going ahead and getting the big govt sellout locked in so we won't be able to repeal these inane conflicts of interest for a very long time or without extreme difficulty. Fuck corporate rule! Corporations aren't people. They should be dismantled every 20 years with the remaining holdings distributed among their workers, who may then apply for a brand new corporate charter, starting over from scratch every 20 years. It would help to prohibit the ridiculous amount of control a few corporate CEOs  and their executive boards have over our joke of a political process. Lobbying needs to be redefined with stricter limits, as well. And when you are interviewing for jobs in the public and private sector, you need to choose which one you'll stay in for 7 years. No more of this revolving door between regulating agencies and the industries/companies they regulate. It's all a huge shitsoaked conflict of interest that has destroyed a whole generation of workers, at least, and cannot provide any kind of future for the next generations of US citizens. The oligarchy must be destroyed by any means possible. Corporate leadership is far from patriotic: they hold the bulk of their fortunes in tax haven banks overseas to keep from paying taxes, drastically undercutting the federal budget during a crucial period in a failing economy 6 years deep in a "small d" depression, AND these traitors get to dictate policy and handpick their own candidates to do their bidding while holding office? Bullshit! Hang them all high! They betray everything sacred about this country and her consitution, all to make themselves richer at the expense of the nation and her people.

EAT THE RICH! and pile their bones up so high they reach the moon.--jef

++++++++++++++

The New Proposal Mocks Net Neutrality
by ALFREDO LOPEZ


When a federal court trashed its “net neutrality” compromise policy in January, the Federal Communications Commission assured us that the Internet we knew and depended on was safe. Most activists didn’t believe federal officials and this past week the FCC demonstrated how realistic our cynicism was.

The Commission announced last week that among its proposals on the Internet, due for full discussion on May 15, was one which would give access providers the right to sign special deals with content producers for connections that are faster and cleaner than the connections most websites use. It’s precisely the nightmare that court decision threatened.

In the predictable outcry and immediate debate over the FCC’s announcement, however, two major issues seemed to be lost.

To deliver this faster connection, the Internet giants will have to change the Net’s protocols, establishing a fast lane that completely destroys the technological basis of Internet neutrality. They will, effectively, be allowed to set up an alternate Internet.
At the same time, the announcements raise a question about the FCC’s role. To develop this proposal, it has obviously been talking to the very companies it is supposed to regulate and has written regulations based primarily on a concern about their ability to make lots of money.

Isn’t this the opposite of what federal regulation is supposed to do?

When the debate dust settles, it appears that not only may we lose the Internet as we know but we have no agency in government looking out for our interests.

The background has been covered on this website but, to recap:

Access (or service) providers offer connections to put you on the Internet and give you several speeds to choose from. They are mainly cable companies like Comcast and telecommunications companies like Verizon. Content providers use those connections to deliver what you want to see and read. Every website owner is a content provider, including biggies like Netflix.

Net Neutrality is the principle that service providers — like Verizon and Comcast — can’t discriminate in the delivery of content or provision of access based on user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication. If you go on-line, you can reach everything anyone else can. It was the law until this past January.

That was when a federal court struck down the provision finding that cable companies like Comcast weren’t subject to the neutrality rules that govern telephone companies and so net neutrality, based on the telecom industry’s practices, didn’t apply to high-speed providers. They are, after all, cable companies and anyone who subscribes to cable television with its multiple “programming packages” that give you a monthly dose of sticker shock knows there’s nothing “neutral” about cable.

In short, service provider companies can now charge content providers money to speed up their content delivery and the content providers can limit access to that faster content to people paying a higher price for it.

While the decision was based on cable company practice, it obviously benefits telecoms like Verizon who also offer high-speed service.

Apparently, the FCC wasn’t too unhappy either. Chairman Tom Wheeler (a former telecom industry lobbyist) reacted in stunningly triumphant terms, assuring us all that our access to the Internet will be completely protected. In fact, he said the ruling actually gives the FCC more regulatory power. This new proposal, carving out a slice of the Internet for rich corporations to operate more quickly and cleanly, was apparently what he meant.

In his defense of the current FCC plan, Wheeler explains that we would all still have access to everything on the Internet. The proposal, he explains, “will restore the concepts of net neutrality consistent with the court’s ruling in January.” But that January ruling threw Net Neutrality out the window and it’s clear that with this new proposal our access to certain content will be slower, more prone to start and stop “buffering” and less crisp than the faster connection unless we pay more for it.

It’s like the locksmith assuring us that our broken door lock will remain broken.

If that spasm of regulatory double-speak doesn’t provoke a groan, the argument by decision defenders will: they say that, while the companies will pay for the faster connection, no access provider will charge the consumer more for it.

But the content provider will. Obviously an outfit like Netflix is not going to offer this higher speed service that it is paying the access providers handsomely for to customers without charging them more for it. In fact, if past practice is any indication, even those of us who don’t or can’t pay for faster internet service we will all see our fees for watching this kind of on-line content rise, whether we’re watching it on the faster connection or not. Netflix pays Comcast more and charges the pass-along costs (with some profit mixed in): just the kind of hustle Net Neutrality was invented to prevent.

If the proposal is approved, as is expected, Net Neutrality will be buried. But the true threat to the Internet’s existence isn’t only the “pay for speed” proposal. To make this happen, providing companies will have to restructure their technology to allow for a faster “lane” on the Internet. There already are, of course, various speeds of “high-speed” service and that is maintained by the company’s determining which connecting server the customer is going to access. When you enter the Internet you are immediately connected to a server that handles outgoing and incoming traffic at a specific speed. If you pay for higher speeds, you get the higher-speed systems with their servers.

All of this, however, has up to now been handled at the user or customer level. The Internet itself remains the same. What the FCC is proposing is a new way of regulating speed. Now it is the content provider who is assigned a specific speed lane and any user who pays can access that high-speed content. To make this possible, the access provider will have to establish not a higher speed connection server but a completely separate connection to the Internet. This isn’t a faster lane on the highway; it’s a completely separate highway.

With that “alternate Internet” established, and with a small empire of developers continuously improving it, the power of providers to control all Internet content is now in place. They can start with Netflix, but they legally have power to channel any Internet content over that super-highway, leaving most content providers in the dust. That will certain include most websites your visit, including this one. As speed over the Internet improves with new technological development, guess where most of the development investment is going? As new streaming technology improves, content developers will have to pay to take advantage of it and most of us just don’t have that kind of money.

The impact is also international because the Internet has no national boundaries and the rules governing any U.S. based company apply to all its activities world-wide unless the government of a specific country objects. That objection will rarely happen because most governments won’t care or will take a pay-off (in the form of a tax payment or licensing fee) to shut up. In fact, governments all over the world can now treat this as another form of revenue.

This kind of corporate control over the Internet and our communications is frightening and control is what the corporations are seeking. It’s been the goal of every major company to control as much access as they can, growing their “user-base” and profits in the process. In fact, the prospect of a wide open internet has now attracted a couple of “data giants”: Google and Facebook. Each company is now developing technology to provide access to everyone on earth using signal bouncing balloons (in Google’s case) and drones and satellites (in Facebook’s). While both companies protest that their intentions are altruistic (providing Internet to all humans), the timing of their plans in light of this decision seem like the good old pursuit of profit.

Rhe main question isn’t whether these people will try to do this because that’s answered by their history: Of course they will. The question then is: What is the FCC doing about it?

This week, coalitions of Internet freedom activists were making plans to make their presentations before the FCC and to lobby Congress and to do letter-writing campaigns to just about any concerned person in government. All of this has proven to be important and useful work and it has ended in some successes in the past.

But why should any of us have to do this? Isn’t the very role of the FCC to protect and represent the public? While neo-con steroids that have been driving it for the last two decades, the FCC’s legal responsibilities remain the same: not to protect the interests of corporations but to protect our interests against corporations.

Clearly, with a proposal that represents corporate interests, the FCC isn’t doing any such thing. Some of us aren’t surprised; none of us should be.

Internet S.O.S.

Saturday, September 14, 2013 by Media Citizen

by Tim Karr







Last week we learned that U.S. and British intelligence agencies have broken the back of digital encryption — the coded technology hundreds of millions of Internet users rely on to keep their communications private.

Is the Internet on life support?

Over the weekend, Der Spiegel reported that the NSA and its British counterpart are also hacking into smartphones to monitor our daily lives in ways that wouldn’t have been possible before the age of the iPhone.

This news, just the latest revelations from the files of Edward Snowden, only heighten our sense that we can no longer assume anything we say or do online is secure.

But that’s not all. In a case that was heard in a U.S. federal appeals court on Monday, telecommunications colossus Verizon is arguing that it has the First Amendment right to block and censor Internet users. (That’s right. Verizon is claiming that, as a corporation, it has the free speech right to silence the online expression of everybody else.)
It's come to this. Government and corporate forces have joined to chip away at two pillars of the open Internet: the control of our personal data and our right to connect and communicate without censorship or interference.

The Surveillance Industrial Complex

A series of reports coordinated among the Guardian, the New York Times and ProPublica revealed that the NSA and its British counterpart have secretly unlocked encryption technologies used by popular online services, including Google, Facebook and Microsoft.

Using National Security Letters and other secret court orders, intelligence agencies can wedge their way onto the large telecommunications networks that move most of the world’s Internet traffic. Getting access to the data is only half the challenge. To read and sort these communications, the NSA works with a lesser-known assortment of security vendors that filter through mountains of data, target references and patterns of interest and crack codes designed to safeguard user identity and content.

Many of the companies that ply this trade are only now being exposed through “Spyfiles,” collaboration among WikiLeaks, Corporate Watch and Privacy International designed to shed light on the multibillion-dollar industry. According to the latest documents provided by Edward Snowden, U.S. intelligence agencies alone spend $250 million each year to use these companies’ commercial security products for mass surveillance.

Without safeguards that protect users from surveillance and censorship, the Internet’s DNA will change in ways that no longer foster openness, free expression and innovation.It’s part of a sprawling complex of companies, lobbyists and government officials seeking to rewire the Internet in ways that wrest control over content away from Internet users.

While motivations may differ, the result is the same: a communications network that works against the Interests of many for the benefit of the few.

Tearing the Fabric

The Internet wasn’t meant to be like this. Bruce Schneier, an encryption fellow at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society, writes that the NSA and the companies it works with are “undermining the very fabric of the Internet.”

Telecommunications companies are doing their part by giving spy agencies access to our data. They’re also bankrolling a multimillion-dollar lobbying effort to destroy Net Neutrality — the one rule that prohibits Internet service providers from blocking or degrading our ability to connect to one another, share information and use the online services of our choosing.

If Verizon wins its case in Washington, ISPs will be able to prioritize certain online content while degrading user access to sites and services that the big companies don’t like.

It’s a business that puts at risk the most integral function of the World Wide Web. Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the Web’s pioneer, saw the network as a “blank canvas” — upon which anyone could contribute, communicate and innovate without permission.

Berners-Lee’s invention relied on an open protocol that gave everyday users power over the network. This networking principle has far-reaching political implications, favoring systems that are more decentralized and democratic.

Without safeguards that protect users from surveillance and censorship, the Internet’s DNA will change in ways that no longer foster openness, free expression and innovation.

Media Policy

If we’ve learned anything during the Summer of Snowden, it’s that corporations and governments alone can’t be trusted to be good stewards of the Internet. We need media policies that protect our privacy and promote access to open networks.

The fight for these policies is being led by a diverse and bipartisan alliance of civil liberties and communications-rights organizations, including the ACLU, EFF, Free Press and Public Knowledge.

We’re not alone. Millions joined the call for Net Neutrality in 2010; millions more stood up to defend the Internet against the PIPA and SOPA Web-censorship bills in 2012. The battle to protect users’ privacy has engaged new audiences as we've learned more about the extent of the NSA's mass surveillance.

In each of these arenas, we’re working to stop bad laws, amend others and implement new policies that put Internet users first.

A grassroots movement is fueling this fight. If you haven’t joined us yet, now’s the time to step up and save the Internet.

Did the FCC just bless a capped, two-tier Internet?

By Nate Anderson | ArsTechnica

You like the idea of Internet data caps and overage charges, right? And the prospect of paying your ISP separate fees for "the Internet" and for "managed" IP services like voice, video, VPN, telehealth, and smart grid applications, even when these directly compete with similar Internet-delivered services?

Okay, you probably don't—if you're a business or home Internet user. But if you're a major Internet provider, you love both of these ideas a lot... and you found support for both of them in Wednesday's "net neutrality preview" from the Federal Communications Commission.

"Broadband rationing"

When FCC Chair Julius Genachowski previewed his net neutrality proposal this week, he mentioned "usage-based pricing" and failed to mention "managed services." Neither item was accidental, and it didn't take long for interested observers to read the tea leaves.

Craig Moffett, an influential Wall Street tech analyst, said after the speech that "broadband rationing is now the order of the day" once Genachowski gave his support to the idea. It's something of a strange comment, since usage-based pricing has not been either regulated or illegal, and in fact data caps are now common even though many are high (such as Comcast's 250GB/month limit). Still, the FCC's endorsement of the idea should provide a bit of cover to wireline ISPs who want to try it.

Moffett added, "We would expect the introduction of UBP [usage-based pricing] plans from major cable [ISPs] to follow in short order, and we would expect that their stocks will respond well to such introductions."

NCTA, the influential lobby for the major cable operators, today quoted Moffett and expressed its own support for UBP as a way to "focus on what best serves consumers." CEO Kyle McSlarrow says he doesn't support any particular model (and likes flat-rate himself), but that ISPs need the flexibility to experiment in order to help "price-sensitive consumers at the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder."

In response to Moffett's quotes, a senior FCC official sent us a statement making clear that data caps, overage charges, and the like would be watched carefully for signs of price gouging in the limited-competition wireline ISP market.

"Usage-based pricing can create more choice and flexibility for consumers," said the official. "But practices that are arbitrary, anti-consumer, or anti-competitive would cause serious concern. The FCC will be a cop on the beat for consumers."

But Genachowski does support the idea, and the ISPs are glad of that explicit support. There's nothing wrong with the idea, in our view, when implemented fairly, but it's not popular with the public in large part because past attempts to implement it have correctly been viewed as a massive cash grab by ISPs that already make insanely high profit margins.

When the cable companies roll out $5 data-capped Internet access to make it easy for poor families to get online, it's hard to envision much opposition. But of course, that's not what we've seen.

We're excellent "managers"

Imagine that you are Netflix boss Reed Hastings. You're busy trying to eat the cable companies' collective lunch by offering on-demand Internet streaming video; sure, you're not there yet, but it's clear this model has a bright future… except for one little worry.

The cable companies and telcos you rely on to deliver your bits also compete with you, offering profitable video services of their own that don't come through "the Internet" but are increasingly based on IP and use the exact same pipe. Should those companies be allowed to offer managed quality of service enhanced video streams over a segregated section of the last-mile Internet pipe to directly compete with your own best-effort Internet offering? And how could this possibly be a fair fight?

We don't need to imagine Hastings worrying about this scenario, though, since Netflix has made its concerns clear in writing. Back in January, the company warned the FCC about letting "managed services" swallow up the open Internet.

"The fact that network operators control the delivery pipes and generate significant revenue from content that travels over those pipes provides both the means and motive for discriminating against new ventures that might threaten revenue sources of the network operators," Netflix warned. These developments "exacerbate the growing concern that [video providers] will use their control over programming networks to stifle competition, including the growing competition from online video providers like Netflix."

Therefore, according to Netflix, the FCC should apply its open Internet principles to "managed services," too, possibly by requiring that such services could never consume more than a set fraction of the Internet pipe, reserving the rest for the "open Internet."

The FCC itself recognized the potential for these kinds of problems when it issued its call for comment on the open Internet (PDF), but it also didn't want to hinder genuine innovation in a nascent market.

"We recognize that these managed or specialized services may differ from broadband Internet access services in ways that recommend a different policy approach," it said at the time, "and it may be inappropriate to apply the rules proposed here to managed or specialized services. However, we are sensitive to any risk that the growth of managed or specialized services might supplant or otherwise negatively affect the open Internet."

The ISPs were aghast at the idea that the FCC might limit them from setting up priority access deals both on the Internet and through these separate managed services. While selling an increasingly fast raw pipe to the 'Net (with neutral congestion management and even customer-directed QoS) might sound like a boon to consumers, ISPs dread the thought of becoming mere bit haulers. The real money comes when you can charge people once for the open Internet, once more for IP voice, a third time for IP video, and another five or six times for various smaller IP services.

They've been lobbying against the idea for months, almost always insisting that "managed services" are about "telehealth" or "smart grids." And you don't hate healthy people, do you?
In the end, the ISPs got their way. Despite the many questions raised by the FCC about managed services, Genachowski's speech didn't mention it once. That was no accident.

Our understanding is that the proposed open Internet rules include nothing about managed services, leaving it entirely unregulated. The FCC has apparently decided—and this is certainly a legitimate point—that no one really knows what services will develop and that it's just too early in the game to lay down any sort of detailed rules. Such rules might, in fact, be counterproductive if offered too early and could squelch a nascent market.

We know the FCC has such concerns because Genachowski stated them explicitly in relation to wireless, where he also accepted the ISPs' arguments that "wireless is different" and doesn't need neutrality rules (transparency is good enough). Instead, the FCC will "monitor" the situation in this young market and act if needed.

The ISP industry has been lobbying for a "light touch" when it comes to open Internet regulation, and they got it; if the touching here were any lighter, it would be nonexistent. The cable industry sees things the same way—and they love it.

"We further understand that the rules do not preclude or inhibit our ability to innovate and deploy new and specialized services," said NCTA after the speech. "Importantly, they appear to reflect Chairman Genachowski’s previously stated position that such rules will not and should not result in price regulation and to recognize the value of flexible business models such as usage based pricing."

Of course, the ISPs aren't in the managed services game because "telehealth" and "distance education" are going to butter their bread, though there is certainly some cash in these services. (Looking for a fun drinking game this weekend? Dig up public references to "managed services" by CEOs and lobbyists and do a shot whenever you see "telehealth" trotted out.)

No, they're in it in order to do things like earn cable-TV-style fees from millions and millions of users, as Google and Verizon at least had the decency to admit earlier this year. ISPs should be free to manage their networks, the two companies said, and "they should also be free to offer managed network services, such as IP television."

Like usage-based pricing, this isn't necessarily a bad idea—who wants their Sunday football games to buffer or glitch out?—but we continue to have real worries about how this affects competition and how it might be implemented. (And this isn't all speculative, either; AT&T already reserves part of its U-Verse connection for IP video and can squeeze Internet traffic when home users are watching more HDTV. Is that good for home TV watchers, bad for innovation at the network edge, or both?)

Arms merchants love an arms race

The FCC has its concerns, too, but it won't act, at least not now. Instead it will "monitor." Those who own the last-mile pipes have permission to continue their experimentation with managed services.

Fortunately, though wireline broadband isn't as competitive as many would like, the major ISPs remain susceptible to public and political pressure that will place constraints on their ability to do anything too outrageous—at least in one giant step. (See the flood of anger at Time Warner Cable's pricing plan experiments in 2009—anger that reached Congress—for a good recent example.)

But what will happen by slow degrees as ISPs condition Internet content providers and the public to pay for more and more services, and to accept certain forms of usage-based pricing?
Verizon already knows—the "open Internet" will take a back seat to the managed "broadband platform."

As the company's top lobbyist, Tom Tauke, put it this summer, "Certainly nobody believes that the promise of broadband is Internet access and video, which is what we have today." No, the future is "'other services' that should be available over the broadband pipe. They need unique creativity and partnerships to make them work. It’s the communications company partnering with the power company to do the smart grid. It’s the communications partnering with the health care provider to do heart monitoring at home. [Editor's note: drink up!] That requires a different set of rules than the rules that govern the best-efforts Internet."

It's a model where ISPs extract rents on every service they can imagine. The danger, of course, is one that Google warned about in a slightly different context: "creating incentives to monetize scarcity rather than build capacity, to generating an 'arms race that benefits only the arms merchants' (where broadband providers increase their income but not overall speeds), to fashioning an Internet where only those who can 'pay to play' will fare well and others will be relegated to a slow lane."

Will that happen? ISPs say no. We're about to find out.

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.

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?