[scifinoir2] [FYI] Don't be fooled: the Google-Verizon plan would kill Net Neutrality
ahar...@earthlink.net www.freepress.org is a good place to go to fight this too. -- From: brent wodehouse brent_wodeho...@thefence.us Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 11:57 PM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: [scifinoir2] [FYI] Don't be fooled: the Google-Verizon plan would kill Net Neutrality http://thephoenix.com/Boston/news/106645-dont-be-fooled-the-google-verizon-plan-would-kil/ [ http://thephoenix.com/Boston/news/106645-dont-be-fooled-the-google-verizon-plan-would-kil/ ]Don't be fooled: the Google-Verizon plan would kill Net Neutrality Evil By [ http://thephoenix.com/Boston/Authors/EDITORIAL/ ]EDITORIAL | August 11, 201 Want evidence that Google is just another avaricious, monopoly-minded corporate behemoth? Consider this: Google has retreated from its long-held support for net neutrality and teamed with Verizon to suggest that new laws allow Internet providers to favor some Web services over others. Google and Verizon also want Congress to exempt mobile devices from net neutrality and to limit the Federal Communications Commission's regulation of the Internet. Google and Verizon have proposed this in a very simple and undeniably clever way, which - unless thoughtfully considered - appears to be eminently reasonable. Under this plan, the Internet as it now exists and is currently understood would remain net neutral. All content would be treated as equal. The Internet as it develops in the future, however, would be different. Tiered service would be allowed. In other words, the giant corporate providers who effectively govern access and regulate traffic would be able to give preferential treatment to certain content or content providers. This is, in and of itself, a nasty piece of snake-oil salesmanship, especially given the speed and unpredictability with which the digital world evolves. But when mobile access is stirred into the brew, it becomes positively toxic. All trends favor more and more mobile access. Morgan Stanley predicts that within five years, the mobile Web will outstrip the desktop Internet. Given the extent to which the Internet governs economic development and the extent to which it is the medium for free speech, it is clear that the Google-Verizon plan is bad news. So much for Google's motto, Don't be evil. To understand this pledge, it must be considered in context. The pithy slogan appears as the first three words in Google's corporate code of conduct governing relations with investors. Yet no corporation can survive, let alone thrive, without turning a profit. So it stands to reason that Googlers (yes, that's how the company refers to its employees) may have a less restricted view of how to interpret the motto than, say, the world's non-Googlers. If net neutrality were a simple code of conduct, then the FCC last year defined it as follows: providers cannot favor their own content; they need to explain when and why variable Internet speeds are imposed on consumers; and they can not limit access to lawful content. As neat and clean as these principles seem, their implementation could prove to be difficult to impossible, thanks to the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, which in April ratified rules adopted by the Bush administration that were intended to derail Internet regulation. The court's decision undoubtedly contributed to the break-up last week of the closed-door discussions the FCC was holding with big Internet corporate players. Whether those talks should have been conducted in secret is now a moot point. But the parallels with former first lady Hillary Clinton's private health-care deliberations and Vice-President Dick Cheney's closed energy sessions are certainly troubling. Power, of course, abhors a vacuum. So while Google's joint proposal with Verizon was a vicious slap in the face to advocates of net neutrality - especially in view of the company's previous admirable support of the concept - under the circumstances it should come as no surprise. Consider the predatory vigor Google displayed when it cornered the digital market on books whose copyright has expired. Vito Corleone would have admired its ruthless elegance. However, Robert Darnton, the historian who heads Harvard's vast system of libraries, has been eloquent in pointing out the intellectual hazards of this development. It would be foolish to expect Congress to unplug the Google-Verizon view of the future. Massachusetts congressman Edward Markey has been foiled in his attempts to do so. But the FCC does have the power to short-circuit it. The FCC must reach back to precedent established since 1910 and declare Internet providers common carriers subject to federal regulation. This is not some cute form of legerdemain. It is legal hardball that would no doubt provoke a hotly contested lawsuit. If the FCC will not stand up to Google, who will? It is time
Re: [scifinoir2] [FYI] Don't be fooled: the Google-Verizon plan would kill Net Neutrality
I think the article is hogwash. Did everyone forget the free highspeed service that they were offering? Check this out: http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/phlog/archive/2010/08/06/the-net-neutrality-spat-explained.aspx On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Amy Harlib ahar...@earthlink.net wrote: ahar...@earthlink.net www.freepress.org is a good place to go to fight this too. -- From: brent wodehouse brent_wodeho...@thefence.us Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 11:57 PM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: [scifinoir2] [FYI] Don't be fooled: the Google-Verizon plan would kill Net Neutrality http://thephoenix.com/Boston/news/106645-dont-be-fooled-the-google-verizon-plan-would-kil/ [ http://thephoenix.com/Boston/news/106645-dont-be-fooled-the-google-verizon-plan-would-kil/ ]Don't be fooled: the Google-Verizon plan would kill Net Neutrality Evil By [ http://thephoenix.com/Boston/Authors/EDITORIAL/ ]EDITORIAL | August 11, 201 Want evidence that Google is just another avaricious, monopoly-minded corporate behemoth? Consider this: Google has retreated from its long-held support for net neutrality and teamed with Verizon to suggest that new laws allow Internet providers to favor some Web services over others. Google and Verizon also want Congress to exempt mobile devices from net neutrality and to limit the Federal Communications Commission's regulation of the Internet. Google and Verizon have proposed this in a very simple and undeniably clever way, which - unless thoughtfully considered - appears to be eminently reasonable. Under this plan, the Internet as it now exists and is currently understood would remain net neutral. All content would be treated as equal. The Internet as it develops in the future, however, would be different. Tiered service would be allowed. In other words, the giant corporate providers who effectively govern access and regulate traffic would be able to give preferential treatment to certain content or content providers. This is, in and of itself, a nasty piece of snake-oil salesmanship, especially given the speed and unpredictability with which the digital world evolves. But when mobile access is stirred into the brew, it becomes positively toxic. All trends favor more and more mobile access. Morgan Stanley predicts that within five years, the mobile Web will outstrip the desktop Internet. Given the extent to which the Internet governs economic development and the extent to which it is the medium for free speech, it is clear that the Google-Verizon plan is bad news. So much for Google's motto, Don't be evil. To understand this pledge, it must be considered in context. The pithy slogan appears as the first three words in Google's corporate code of conduct governing relations with investors. Yet no corporation can survive, let alone thrive, without turning a profit. So it stands to reason that Googlers (yes, that's how the company refers to its employees) may have a less restricted view of how to interpret the motto than, say, the world's non-Googlers. If net neutrality were a simple code of conduct, then the FCC last year defined it as follows: providers cannot favor their own content; they need to explain when and why variable Internet speeds are imposed on consumers; and they can not limit access to lawful content. As neat and clean as these principles seem, their implementation could prove to be difficult to impossible, thanks to the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, which in April ratified rules adopted by the Bush administration that were intended to derail Internet regulation. The court's decision undoubtedly contributed to the break-up last week of the closed-door discussions the FCC was holding with big Internet corporate players. Whether those talks should have been conducted in secret is now a moot point. But the parallels with former first lady Hillary Clinton's private health-care deliberations and Vice-President Dick Cheney's closed energy sessions are certainly troubling. Power, of course, abhors a vacuum. So while Google's joint proposal with Verizon was a vicious slap in the face to advocates of net neutrality - especially in view of the company's previous admirable support of the concept - under the circumstances it should come as no surprise. Consider the predatory vigor Google displayed when it cornered the digital market on books whose copyright has expired. Vito Corleone would have admired its ruthless elegance. However, Robert Darnton, the historian who heads Harvard's vast system of libraries, has been eloquent in pointing out the intellectual hazards of this development. It would be foolish to expect Congress to unplug the Google-Verizon view of the future. Massachusetts congressman Edward Markey has been foiled in his attempts
Re: [scifinoir2] [FYI] Don't be fooled: the Google-Verizon plan would kill Net Neutrality
As explained to me, this deal, if enacted, would essentially fracture the availability of internet content. At home you'd have unabridged internet. On you wireless device you'd have the internet your carrier has decided to provide to you based on the deals they've made. The wireless internet would follow the cable tv model. Gerald Haynes http://thesmallfries.com - Calvin Hobbes who? http://dontarrestus.com - Latino based sci-fi comic strip fun From: Mr. Worf hellomahog...@gmail.com To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, August 12, 2010 3:10:38 AM Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] [FYI] Don't be fooled: the Google-Verizon plan would kill Net Neutrality I think the article is hogwash. Did everyone forget the free highspeed service that they were offering? Check this out: http://thephoenix. com/BLOGS/ phlog/archive/ 2010/08/06/ the-net-neutrali ty-spat-explaine d.aspx On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Amy Harlib ahar...@earthlink. net wrote: ahar...@earthlink. net www.freepress. org is a good place to go to fight this too. - - - - -- From: brent wodehouse brent_wodehouse@ thefence. us Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 11:57 PM To: scifino...@yahoogro ups.com Subject: [scifinoir2] [FYI] Don't be fooled: the Google-Verizon plan would kill Net Neutrality http://thephoenix. com/Boston/ news/106645- dont-be-fooled- the-google- verizon-plan- would-kil/ [ http://thephoenix. com/Boston/ news/106645- dont-be-fooled- the-google- verizon-plan- would-kil/ ]Don't be fooled: the Google-Verizon plan would kill Net Neutrality Evil By [ http://thephoenix. com/Boston/ Authors/EDITORIA L/ ]EDITORIAL | August 11, 201 Want evidence that Google is just another avaricious, monopoly-minded corporate behemoth? Consider this: Google has retreated from its long-held support for net neutrality and teamed with Verizon to suggest that new laws allow Internet providers to favor some Web services over others. Google and Verizon also want Congress to exempt mobile devices from net neutrality and to limit the Federal Communications Commission's regulation of the Internet. Google and Verizon have proposed this in a very simple and undeniably clever way, which - unless thoughtfully considered - appears to be eminently reasonable. Under this plan, the Internet as it now exists and is currently understood would remain net neutral. All content would be treated as equal. The Internet as it develops in the future, however, would be different. Tiered service would be allowed. In other words, the giant corporate providers who effectively govern access and regulate traffic would be able to give preferential treatment to certain content or content providers. This is, in and of itself, a nasty piece of snake-oil salesmanship, especially given the speed and unpredictability with which the digital world evolves. But when mobile access is stirred into the brew, it becomes positively toxic. All trends favor more and more mobile access. Morgan Stanley predicts that within five years, the mobile Web will outstrip the desktop Internet. Given the extent to which the Internet governs economic development and the extent to which it is the medium for free speech, it is clear that the Google-Verizon plan is bad news. So much for Google's motto, Don't be evil. To understand this pledge, it must be considered in context. The pithy slogan appears as the first three words in Google's corporate code of conduct governing relations with investors. Yet no corporation can survive, let alone thrive, without turning a profit. So it stands to reason that Googlers (yes, that's how the company refers to its employees) may have a less restricted view of how to interpret the motto than, say, the world's non-Googlers. If net neutrality were a simple code of conduct, then the FCC last year defined it as follows: providers cannot favor their own content; they need to explain when and why variable Internet speeds are imposed on consumers; and they can not limit access to lawful content. As neat and clean as these principles seem, their implementation could prove to be difficult to impossible, thanks to the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, which in April ratified rules adopted by the Bush administration that were intended to derail Internet regulation. The court's decision undoubtedly contributed to the break-up last week of the closed-door discussions the FCC was holding with big Internet corporate players. Whether those talks should have been conducted in secret is now a moot point. But the parallels with former first lady Hillary Clinton's private health-care deliberations and Vice-President Dick Cheney's closed energy sessions are certainly troubling. Power, of course, abhors a vacuum. So while Google's joint proposal with Verizon was a vicious slap in the face to advocates of net neutrality
Re: [scifinoir2] [FYI] Don't be fooled: the Google-Verizon plan would kill Net Neutrality
Which would be WRONG. We can't let the Corporate Overlords hold all the cards. As long as we're the consumers, we should have the say as to what's available. On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:32 AM, Gerald Haynes efhay...@yahoo.com wrote: As explained to me, this deal, if enacted, would essentially fracture the availability of internet content. At home you'd have unabridged internet. On you wireless device you'd have the internet your carrier has decided to provide to you based on the deals they've made. The wireless internet would follow the cable tv model. Gerald Haynes http://thesmallfries.com - Calvin Hobbes who? http://dontarrestus.com - Latino based sci-fi comic strip fun -- *From:* Mr. Worf hellomahog...@gmail.com *To:* scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Thu, August 12, 2010 3:10:38 AM *Subject:* Re: [scifinoir2] [FYI] Don't be fooled: the Google-Verizon plan would kill Net Neutrality I think the article is hogwash. Did everyone forget the free highspeed service that they were offering? Check this out: http://thephoenix. com/BLOGS/ phlog/archive/ 2010/08/06/ the-net-neutrali ty-spat-explaine d.aspxhttp://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/phlog/archive/2010/08/06/the-net-neutrality-spat-explained.aspx On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Amy Harlib ahar...@earthlink. netahar...@earthlink.net wrote: ahar...@earthlink. net ahar...@earthlink.net www.freepress. org http://www.freepress.org is a good place to go to fight this too. - - - - -- From: brent wodehouse brent_wodehouse@ thefence. usbrent_wodeho...@thefence.us Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 11:57 PM To: scifino...@yahoogro ups.com scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: [scifinoir2] [FYI] Don't be fooled: the Google-Verizon plan would kill Net Neutrality http://thephoenix. com/Boston/ news/106645- dont-be-fooled- the-google- verizon-plan- would-kil/http://thephoenix.com/Boston/news/106645-dont-be-fooled-the-google-verizon-plan-would-kil/ [ http://thephoenix. com/Boston/ news/106645- dont-be-fooled- the-google- verizon-plan- would-kil/http://thephoenix.com/Boston/news/106645-dont-be-fooled-the-google-verizon-plan-would-kil/ ]Don't be fooled: the Google-Verizon plan would kill Net Neutrality Evil By [ http://thephoenix. com/Boston/ Authors/EDITORIA L/http://thephoenix.com/Boston/Authors/EDITORIAL/]EDITORIAL | August 11, 201 Want evidence that Google is just another avaricious, monopoly-minded corporate behemoth? Consider this: Google has retreated from its long-held support for net neutrality and teamed with Verizon to suggest that new laws allow Internet providers to favor some Web services over others. Google and Verizon also want Congress to exempt mobile devices from net neutrality and to limit the Federal Communications Commission's regulation of the Internet. Google and Verizon have proposed this in a very simple and undeniably clever way, which - unless thoughtfully considered - appears to be eminently reasonable. Under this plan, the Internet as it now exists and is currently understood would remain net neutral. All content would be treated as equal. The Internet as it develops in the future, however, would be different. Tiered service would be allowed. In other words, the giant corporate providers who effectively govern access and regulate traffic would be able to give preferential treatment to certain content or content providers. This is, in and of itself, a nasty piece of snake-oil salesmanship, especially given the speed and unpredictability with which the digital world evolves. But when mobile access is stirred into the brew, it becomes positively toxic. All trends favor more and more mobile access. Morgan Stanley predicts that within five years, the mobile Web will outstrip the desktop Internet. Given the extent to which the Internet governs economic development and the extent to which it is the medium for free speech, it is clear that the Google-Verizon plan is bad news. So much for Google's motto, Don't be evil. To understand this pledge, it must be considered in context. The pithy slogan appears as the first three words in Google's corporate code of conduct governing relations with investors. Yet no corporation can survive, let alone thrive, without turning a profit. So it stands to reason that Googlers (yes, that's how the company refers to its employees) may have a less restricted view of how to interpret the motto than, say, the world's non-Googlers. If net neutrality were a simple code of conduct, then the FCC last year defined it as follows: providers cannot favor their own content; they need to explain when and why variable Internet speeds are imposed on consumers; and they can not limit access to lawful content. As neat and clean as these principles seem, their implementation could
[scifinoir2] [FYI] Don't be fooled: the Google-Verizon plan would kill Net Neutrality
http://thephoenix.com/Boston/news/106645-dont-be-fooled-the-google-verizon-plan-would-kil/ [ http://thephoenix.com/Boston/news/106645-dont-be-fooled-the-google-verizon-plan-would-kil/ ]Don't be fooled: the Google-Verizon plan would kill Net Neutrality Evil By [ http://thephoenix.com/Boston/Authors/EDITORIAL/ ]EDITORIAL | August 11, 201 Want evidence that Google is just another avaricious, monopoly-minded corporate behemoth? Consider this: Google has retreated from its long-held support for net neutrality and teamed with Verizon to suggest that new laws allow Internet providers to favor some Web services over others. Google and Verizon also want Congress to exempt mobile devices from net neutrality and to limit the Federal Communications Commission's regulation of the Internet. Google and Verizon have proposed this in a very simple and undeniably clever way, which - unless thoughtfully considered - appears to be eminently reasonable. Under this plan, the Internet as it now exists and is currently understood would remain net neutral. All content would be treated as equal. The Internet as it develops in the future, however, would be different. Tiered service would be allowed. In other words, the giant corporate providers who effectively govern access and regulate traffic would be able to give preferential treatment to certain content or content providers. This is, in and of itself, a nasty piece of snake-oil salesmanship, especially given the speed and unpredictability with which the digital world evolves. But when mobile access is stirred into the brew, it becomes positively toxic. All trends favor more and more mobile access. Morgan Stanley predicts that within five years, the mobile Web will outstrip the desktop Internet. Given the extent to which the Internet governs economic development and the extent to which it is the medium for free speech, it is clear that the Google-Verizon plan is bad news. So much for Google's motto, Don't be evil. To understand this pledge, it must be considered in context. The pithy slogan appears as the first three words in Google's corporate code of conduct governing relations with investors. Yet no corporation can survive, let alone thrive, without turning a profit. So it stands to reason that Googlers (yes, that's how the company refers to its employees) may have a less restricted view of how to interpret the motto than, say, the world's non-Googlers. If net neutrality were a simple code of conduct, then the FCC last year defined it as follows: providers cannot favor their own content; they need to explain when and why variable Internet speeds are imposed on consumers; and they can not limit access to lawful content. As neat and clean as these principles seem, their implementation could prove to be difficult to impossible, thanks to the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, which in April ratified rules adopted by the Bush administration that were intended to derail Internet regulation. The court's decision undoubtedly contributed to the break-up last week of the closed-door discussions the FCC was holding with big Internet corporate players. Whether those talks should have been conducted in secret is now a moot point. But the parallels with former first lady Hillary Clinton's private health-care deliberations and Vice-President Dick Cheney's closed energy sessions are certainly troubling. Power, of course, abhors a vacuum. So while Google's joint proposal with Verizon was a vicious slap in the face to advocates of net neutrality - especially in view of the company's previous admirable support of the concept - under the circumstances it should come as no surprise. Consider the predatory vigor Google displayed when it cornered the digital market on books whose copyright has expired. Vito Corleone would have admired its ruthless elegance. However, Robert Darnton, the historian who heads Harvard's vast system of libraries, has been eloquent in pointing out the intellectual hazards of this development. It would be foolish to expect Congress to unplug the Google-Verizon view of the future. Massachusetts congressman Edward Markey has been foiled in his attempts to do so. But the FCC does have the power to short-circuit it. The FCC must reach back to precedent established since 1910 and declare Internet providers common carriers subject to federal regulation. This is not some cute form of legerdemain. It is legal hardball that would no doubt provoke a hotly contested lawsuit. If the FCC will not stand up to Google, who will? It is time that someone establishes that what's good for Google is not necessarily what is good for the United States - or the world. For more information, and to learn what you can do, visit the Save the Internet Coalition at [ http://savetheinternet.com/ ]savetheinternet.com.
