Have you been following the news on the “alleged” Google-Verizon agreement, and the possibility of delivering speedier Internet service to those able to pay for it?
Many sources are weighing in, interpreting this as the demise of the little guy when it comes to web content. You know – people like you and me, and many of our favorite places to visit, learn, discuss, and do business.
Is the face of the Internet about to change – for the worse – for millions of us? Or are we mired in corporate and political double talk, unable to weed out what’s really going on?
If you’re not sure what I’m talking about, check out this discussion on Huffington Post, or the New York Times article if you prefer. Be sure to see today’s story, also appearing on Huffington Post, with Google, Verizon and others explaining their positions. Or stay tuned to The New York Times, The Washington Post and plenty of other sources online.
The gist, sort of
The Internet has been a level playing field for years – worldwide access and speed, whether you’re hitting your favorite pages overseas, online shopping with a local boutique, reading news, selling your goods and services, or blogging with fellow trekkies, parents, film buffs, art enthusiasts, or grief support group. We’re talking equal data access for all content providers, large and small. Apparently, that is about to be compromised.
For some of us, that means community. For others, news and information. And for many, a means to earn a living. We’re talking about a tiered system allowing large companies preferential treatment if they’re willing to pay a premium. You know they’ll pay that premium. So where does that leave the rest of us?
One side of the picture
While the F.C.C. has tried to enforce net neutrality, a recent court ruling determined that they could not prevent Internet service providers from delivering preferential service to certain customers.
According to The New York Times:
The court decision said the F.C.C. lacked the authority to require that an Internet service provider refrain from blocking or slowing down some content or applications, or giving favor to others. The F.C.C. has since sought another way in which to enforce the concept of net neutrality. But its proposals have been greeted with much objection in Congress and among Internet service providers, cable companies and some Internet content producers.
Does this mean the rest of us are about to be left in the dust, forced to pay more for Internet services, and languishing with slow content or more limited access?
Rebuttal?
Today’s Huffington Post article reports sound bytes from various sources, including Google and Verizon (claiming to be misunderstood, committed to Internet openness and accountability), as well as Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal and others. From this latest news:
Acknowledging that “details are scarce,” the Wall Street Journal, citing “people briefed on the tentative agreement,” writes the “tentative agreement” could “provide a framework for legislation that would codify some of the Federal Communications Commission’s net-neutrality principles. It would, however, allow phone and cable companies to offer faster, priority delivery of Internet traffic for companies that pay extra for the service, these people said.”
So what are we to make of this? Massive impacts to our daily Internet-dependent lives? Our meager Internet incomes? Services as delivered on mobile devices? Or is it “simply” another hike in cost during wretched economic times?
- What do you think? Wait and see? Cry foul?
- Is the “open Internet” on the brink of destruction?
- How would reduced access to daily communities and customers affect you?
We live in a David and Goliath world, but Goliath seems to be growing stronger. Concerned? I know I am.
© D A Wolf
That would suck big time.
Goliath is a douche.
There’s a petition against this deal at http://bit.ly/btLlK3. I don’t know if it will do any good, but at least we can tell them to keep their hands off our access . . .
In addition, for those who care about net neutrality, check out http://www.freepress.net/ They keep up with the latest threats to our freedom on the internet, and provide links to petitions, etc.
Thank you for this, Wendy!
Other internet providers, namely mine Time-Warner, have been doing this without advertising for years. Businesses pay more and get faster service for their connections. Recently, T-W started offering, and heavily advertising, a turbo boost for their Roadrunner broadband service. That means, on top of the regular monthly RR costs, you pay extra for faster service.
While I do think that Verizon – having at one point in time been a Baby Bell before becoming Verizon – may find the road eventually harder to travel as Congress and enforcement agencies attempt to let another Ma Bell get started.
I signed the petition. Admittedly, when I first heard about it, I thought it was like the difference between dial-up and DSL and didn’t care that much. So thank you for bringing this to my attention.
It’s great to have you bringing this to my attention! One of the things I’ve always celebrated about the internet is the fairness to the little guy. Perhaps that is about to change.
I have been seeing the headlines but haven’t bothered to read up on it. I seriously hope they know it’s bad business to alienate the little guys like us. We may be small, but there are many of us. I for one wouldn’t hesitate to switch to Bing (or Cuil) if need be.
Does my service actually get slower or theirs faster?
Good question. But doesn’t it stand to reason that if faster becomes the norm, then anything else will be perceived as slower?
This is what PC World had to say…
“If the Times’ report is true, this would mean that you would get fast access over a broadband connection only to Websites and online services that are willing to pay ISPs for speedy delivery. Websites that didn’t pay would be slower to load and less usable.”
I personally don’t think it is going to happen. I have to say though that it wouldn’t surprise me if it did. Corporations have the final say in this country, not government agencies and these are two very powerful corporations.
Google is doing a lot of denying and double talking. They have a lot of control over internet content and like making us writers jump through all kinds of hoops already. Hopefully they won’t also end up with the kind of control such an agreement would mean.
I’m off to sign that petition!
wow i didn’t even give the news about the Google-Verizon deal a second thought until reading this. thanks for explaining the suckiness of it. i wonder how/if it will affect us Canadians.
You raise a great point, Mel. Obviously we’re used to crossing borders as we share information and commentary, not to mention conduct business, access ads. I continue to read a variety of articles, but it all still seems murky.
Here are a few more sources:
http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/05/technology/google_verizon_net_neutrality_rules/index.htm
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/08/05/google-verizon-net-neutrality-talks-confuse/
Boy, it pays (although not in this case) to be ignorant which I’ve been about this Internet dirty dealing. This doesn’t surprise me. It’s like the publishing industry (or the food or the energy/oil industries) where there are mammoth publishing houses who monopolize what books are published and distributed to large bookstores. That’s why it’s important to support small presses and independent book stores. We’ll have to find ways to start a grassroots campaign to do the same for those bloggers and sites we want to keep on the web.
I used to work in a TV-related internet startup. There is limited bandwith for cable TV and cell phones. The cable company can only send so much data down the pipe, and the pipe is shared by all in your neighborhood. If most of those people want to see the Yahoo home page, the Yahoo home page will be sent down the pipe first and most frequently. That way most customers are happy with connection speed. You’ll still be able to get content from other sites, even “the little guys”. But if only one person in the neighborhood wants to see one particular piece of content, like Uncle Fred’s wedding video, should all the other neighbors suffer? A YouTube video requires far more bandwidth to send than a blog post does.
Consumers have come to expect so much of the internet to be free. Problem is, internet access in the US is woefully slow compared to net access in other parts of the world. Someone has to pay for the infrastructure to evolve to the next level.
I read that there were 5 exabytes of date created between the dawn of time and 2003. There are now 5 exabytes of data created every 2 days. Why on earth would we expect to access all of that instantaneously for free? Especially on our current information networks. http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/04/schmidt-data/
I agree it’s dangerous for the net to be divided up by a few players. But internet infrastructure advancements don’t come for free. Someone has to pay. Providers need investment incentives to innovate.
This from Google and Verizon yesterday: http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-for-open-internet.html
Blogs won’t go away.
Blogs won’t go away – they’ll just cost more, like so many other things? Thanks for these links, DM.