Farewell to Android
Klout is FarmVille for grown-ups
Does Flash matter on mobile?
What is Twitter?
Google, a company that I've long admired and currently hold thousands of dollars of stock in, just 'went evil.' Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, via the Huffington Post.
Wikileaks is great isn't it? A humble internet project which manages to deal a large blow to concentrated centers of power thus promoting greater openness and democracy. Well you can forget about Wikileaks, and perhaps many of the blogs, websites and applications you use, if Google and Verizon get their way.
Google and Verizon's recently announced plan for an "Open Internet" is an effort that will open the floodgates to much greater corporate and government control over internet content. Although "Open Internet" sounds very nice, it smacks of doublespeak that would have George Orwell turning in his grave. The plan outlines seven proposals which Google and Verizon claim will ensure that certain internet traffic is prioritized over others by Internet Service Providers (ISPs).
Firstly, it should be made clear that the plan only applies to "internet anywhere" wireless networks (that Verizon conveniently owns huge parts of). It doesn't apply to fixed-line networks which Google maintain they are still in favor of keeping equal access to, safe in the knowledge that there's no further money to be made from it because the fixed-line networks and bandwidths have reached their limits. It does not apply to mobile networks as yet either. The big money is now in "internet anywhere" wireless networks - which is why Google and Verizon are trying to shore it up - and what happens with it will undoubtedly have a huge knock-on the freedom of both fixed-line and mobile internet.
What it means for wireless consumers is that they will have to pay more for certain content than others. So for example, if you want to watch video which requires more bandwidth than just surfing pages on the net, you'll have to pay your ISP more in order to do so. So you can kiss YouTube goodbye if you can't afford what your ISP are charging for a video enabled service. Or, let's say you really like using Spotify. Well forget that too unless you're willing to pay for a streaming enabled account.
And what if your ISP decides to ignore these rules in the spirit of openness that the internet is currently based on? Well they will be subject to a penalty of $2m. No problem for giants like Verizon and AT&T to pay but probably enough to bankrupt a small provider that's determined to operate an open service. Certainly enough to bankrupt a small provider that might dare to allow access to something like Wikileaks. The FCC is controlled by the US government and it doesn't take a genius to see where this is leading - more suppression of dissent and criticism of US government actions.
According to Joel Kelsey of public policy group Free Press, what the proposals amount to is corporate control of the internet. He told the BBC:
It would give companies like Verizon, Comcast and AT&T the right to decide which content will move fast and which should be slowed down. If codified, this arrangement will lead to toll booths on the information superhighway. It will lead to outright blocking of applications and content on increasingly popular wireless platforms.
The Open Internet plan means that in the stroke of a Senator's pen, the internet will suddenly become as class ridden and undemocratic as the real world. Those who can pay, will get preferential treatment and services. Those who can't, will get a much poorer service. And even more concerning, those ISPs that allow users to publish information considered damaging to corporate or government interests could be blackmailed with the law.
In other words, the plans are an internet killer in the words of Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee who urges the FCC not to adopt the proposals because they:
Would kill the internet as we know it. Google, a company that I've long admired and currently hold thousands of dollars of stock in, just 'went evil.'
The other major issue at stake here is why should Google and Verizon be allowed to "gang-up" and dictate what the FCC should or should not pass as law? Surely that's the job of democratically elected Congress as Charing Ball writes:
The fact that Google and Verizon are advising the FCC on how it should “frame legislature” is problematic and disturbing in and of itself. Excuse me if I’m mistaken, but legislation is a function of Congress and certainly not two telecommunication juggernauts, which certainly have something to gain by drafting the rules in their interest. By allowing Google and Verizon to draft the rules, it’s like asking the wolves to guard the hen house.
If you want to block Google and Verizon's plans to restrict freedom of information and maintain the internet as free as it is today, sign-up for the Progressive Change Campaign petition to stop the FCC passing the Open Internet into law.
This is what happens when companies get too powerful. They believe they can do as they please and everyone else will just accept it. In Verizon's heads they think they can put a cap on internet usage and charge a premium for going over and everyone will just accept it. They don't realize how many people will stop using the internet and in the end Verizon will lose money because a lot of Verizon customers will get pissed off and go to another service. In the end if this law passes it will be the end of Verizon, Google and the web as we know it.
People will definitely go to other services. However, if those other services have been bankrupted or handcuffed by an "Open Internet" law that is imposed on them, then there might not be anyone else to go to. As an add-on to this post, it should be noted that Google have officially responded to all the criticism leveled at them for their part in this deal: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/facts-about-our-network-neutrality.html Google say: "But given political realities, this particular issue has been intractable in Washington for several years now. At this time there are no enforceable protections – at the Federal Communications Commission or anywhere else – against even the worst forms of carrier discrimination against Internet traffic. With that in mind, we decided to partner with a major broadband provider on the best policy solution we could devise together. We’re not saying this solution is perfect, but we believe that a proposal that locks in key enforceable protections for consumers is preferable to no protection at all." I'm not convinced by this argument. As far as I know, there are no enforceable protections for fixed-line internet customers against carrier discrimination of internet traffic and it's never been a problem. Why then do we need Google and Verizon to outline protections for wireless internet?
I may be reading wrong but it sounds like not only is Google and Verizon trying to stop unlimited internet but allowing the FCC to set rules and boundaries. So basically we would pay more overall and lose certain freedoms. No one wants the FCC involved. Being monitored and told what we can and can't do is the last thing we want. They act like this is a good thing, when they refuse to ask the users themselves what they think. I hate when the US businesses and Government think their supposed to play "God" and tell people what they can and can't do. They already try and control the food portion size in restaurants thinking it's their job to control our lifestyle. We are supposed to be the land of the free and I think those days are over when businesses and the government are trying to force us to do everything in a way they see as the way things should be. And Nick I believe Verizon at least wants full control of the web to make extra money. Put a bandwidth cap on internet will equal more people going over their limit which means more money in the ISPs pockets. The FCC would probably try and do away with porn and try and monitors sites to make sure things are running within US regulations. It would be an attempt to get rid of offensive behavior, illegal downloads and any other free will people have. All this said I think Google has a different plan than Verizon and is using Verizon to help with their plans. It's already been long believed Google is trying to make all the web function without having to your browser. Pretty much have the whole internet be something like Adobe AIR. They want to do away with browsers and Operating Systems which might mean also trying to get rid of internet as well. Imagine going wherever you want in offline mode. Who would gain from getting rid of browsers, operating systems, going to normal sites and getting rid of internet as the way we know it? Google. While all of Google's competitors becoming obsolete. No internet would mean no money for ISPs, getting rid of browsers gets rid of companies like Mozilla. Having everything in "Cloud" form would get rid of malware which would put security companies out of business. With web based apps running on AIR with no software needed, companies who charge for paid software will lose money and companies like Microsoft and Apple would have to make money elsewhere because with Google removing the need of an Operating System people won't be forking over $200 or more which would cost Apple and Microsoft billions.
I'm really terrified after reading this. We are supposed to spread freedom in more and more areas, and more effectively, right ? Or are we supposed to defeat freedom. This is totally meaningless, against freedom, and against the internet. I love Google but won't anymore if this happens, if they make it happen. Google will be remembered as the evil guys, and not as the good, great guys, they are now.
@Matt, I don't think the internet is going anywhere soon although you're right that things are moving towards cloud computing. But that doesn't mean Google have to dominate - other companies such as Adobe and Mozilla are free to also innovate in this area. @Alvas, If you really feel strongly about the implications the Google-Verizon proposal could have for internet freedom, sign the petition against it. The only way to protect freedom on the internet is if internet users make it plain to powerful interests that they will not accept the restrictions they propose. Petition here: http://act.boldprogressives.org/cms/sign/google_evil/?source=huff1