The End of The Internet as We Know It

[TampaYankee]

Josh Silver.President, Free Press

Posted: August 5, 2010 09:26 AM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-silver/google-verizon-deal-the-e_b_671617.html

For years, Internet advocates have warned of the doomsday scenario that will play out on Monday: Google and Verizon will announce a deal that the New York Times reports "could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content's creators are willing to pay for the privilege."

The deal marks the beginning of the end of the Internet as you know it. Since its beginnings, the Net was a level playing field that allowed all content to move at the same speed, whether it's ABC News or your uncle's video blog. That's all about to change, and the result couldn't be more bleak for the future of the Internet, for television, radio and independent voices.

How did this happen? We have a Federal Communications Commission that has been denied authority by the courts to police the activities of Internet service providers like Verizon and Comcast. All because of a bad decision by the Bush-era FCC. We have a pro-industry FCC Chairman who is terrified of making a decision, conducting back room dealmaking, and willing to sit on his hands rather than reassert his agency's authority. We have a president who promised to "take a back seat to no one on Net Neutrality" yet remains silent. We have a congress that is nearly completely captured by industry. Yes, more than half of the US congress will do pretty much whatever the phone and cable companies ask them to. Add the clout of Google, and you have near-complete control of Capitol Hill.

A non-neutral Internet means that companies like AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and Google can turn the Net into cable TV and pick winners and losers online. A problem just for Internet geeks? You wish. All video, radio, phone and other services will soon be delivered through an Internet connection. Ending Net Neutrality would end the revolutionary potential that any website can act as a television or radio network. It would spell the end of our opportunity to wrest access and distribution of media content away from the handful of massive media corporations that currently control the television and radio dial.

So the Google-Verizon deal can be summed up as this: "FCC, you have no authority over us and you're not going to do anything about it. Congress, we own you, and we'll get whatever legislation we want. And American people, you can't stop us.

This Google-Verizon deal, this industry-captured FCC, and the way this is playing out is akin to the largest banks and the largest hedge funds writing the regulatory policy on derivative trading without any oversight or input from the public, and having it rubber stamped by the SEC. It's like BP and Halliburton ironing out the rules for offshore oil drilling with no public input, and having MMS sign off.

Fortunately, while they are outnumbered, there are several powerful Net Neutrality champions on Capitol Hill, like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Henry Waxman, Jay Rockefeller, Ed Markey, Jay Inslee and many others. But they will not be able to turn this tide unless they have massive, visible support from every American who uses the Internet --- whether it's for news, email, shopping, Facebook, Twitter --- whatever. So stop what you're doing and tell them you're not letting the Internet go the way of Big Oil and Big Banks. The future of the Internet, and your access to information depends on it.

Author's note: Notice how a company can change their tune in the name of profitmaking. From Google in 2006: "Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody - no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional - has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can't pay."

Follow Josh Silver on Twitter: www.twitter.com/freepress

[Guest restless]

That's fucking scary.

[TampaYankee]

That's fucking scary.

Just another example of the influence of Corrupt Big Money Capitolism.

[BiBottomBoy]

My feeling is the FCC will end up blocking this. Yes, they fucked up their compromise the other day, but Verizon and Google being in the news will motivate them to kick some serious ass.

[Lucky]

Google says that if you are going to commit an evil crime,your anonymity on the internet should not be inviolable. But what determines an evil crime? Some would say that hiring escorts is such.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/10/eric-schmidt-privacy-stan_n_677224.html

[Guest CharliePS]

Google says that if you are going to commit an evil crime,your anonymity on the internet should not be inviolable. But what determines an evil crime? Some would say that hiring escorts is such.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/10/eric-schmidt-privacy-stan_n_677224.html

Hiring escorts is a GOOD crime!

[lookin]

Google says that if you are going to commit an evil crime,your anonymity on the internet should not be inviolable. But what determines an evil crime? Some would say that hiring escorts is such.

I guess I'm hearing enough about Google to start moving even further away from them and their policies and practices.

A year ago, I emailed a friend about HDTV dimensions and gave it the cutesy subject line "Size matters". He uses Gmail and got my missive along with attached ads for penile enhancers and plus-size brassieres. That's when I first discovered that Gmail reads private emails and, based on content, attaches advertising it deems relevant. Lesson learned, I vowed I'd never sign up for Gmail myself, and would further self-censor anything I sent to friends who are Gmail users.

Prodded by your post, and once again in your debt, I've just learned that Google stores search IP's for eighteen months currently, versus six months for Bing. So, I'll make Bing my default search engine for the nonce, as a wee small form of protest.

As usual, the Europeans are way ahead of us on privacy issues and are presently thumping Google on their practices. A fat lot of good it will do them, most likely, but their hearts are in the right place. There's a Netherlands-based search engine called ixquick that prides itself on not storing IP addresses at all but, predictably, their span of search results is close to nil. At least as far as Ralph Woods photos.

By the by, I sometimes check to see who's signed in to MER, and often find Google listed as they crawl around checking to see what's new with us. They're here now.

Hey, Eric, wassup!

[Guest restless]

By the by, I sometimes check to see who's signed in to MER, and often find Google listed as they crawl around checking to see what's new with us. They're here now.

Hey, Eric, wassup!

Jesus Christ, he got a permit for that thing?

[BiBottomBoy]

I think Google has a lot of pressure to store that data.

A couple years ago the NJ cops were able to convict a woman for murdering her husband because google was able to provide them with her search history which included "how to kill your husband" "body burial" "stab wounds" "Body dump" and "murder alibi."

[JKane]

I think Google has a lot of pressure to store that data.

A couple years ago the NJ cops were able to convict a woman for murdering her husband because google was able to provide them with her search history which included "how to kill your husband" "body burial" "stab wounds" "Body dump" and "murder alibi."

But did they really *need* that data to convict if she had to look it up and was dumb enough to do it from her home computer? Where they may've also been able to find the same info in the browser history?

Criminals and smart people can just use anonymous proxies.

Google's "don't be evil" moniker is getting to be about as worthwhile as Fox News's "Fair and Balanced"!

[BiBottomBoy]

They had no physical evidence and the judge wouldn't sign the arrest warrant until they came up with the Google stuff, so yeah they needed it.

But did they really *need* that data to convict if she had to look it up and was dumb enough to do it from her home computer? Where they may've also been able to find the same info in the browser history?

Criminals and smart people can just use anonymous proxies.

Google's "don't be evil" moniker is getting to be about as worthwhile as Fox News's "Fair and Balanced"!

[MsGuy]

So now Comcast has decided to charge Netflix (& presumably any other Streaming content providers in the future) a toll to allow their bit-stream to flow down the last mile of the internet.

Pay to Play

[lookin]

Pay to Play

Interesting article. Thanks.

The arguments make my head spin, as both sides seem to have valid points. I'd like to know how much Comcast is charging Level 3 for handling Netflix traffic. Obviously it's enough to make Level 3 squeal. My guess is Comcast is motivated by losing some of its own pay-per-view business to Netflix, rather than by having to handle the additional traffic.

Reminds me that we're really still in the early days of the internet, and business models will come and go quickly.

So long as Comcast keeps its mitts off Cam4, I guess I'll just bide my time.

[TampaYankee]

As usual, the Europeans are way ahead of us on privacy issues and are presently thumping Google on their practices.

Unlike the American Model, Big Business does not call the tune quite so predominantly over there. I wonder if Business can make unlimited contributions to political candidates over there? Just a thought.

[BiBottomBoy]

During a strike in France a year or two ago the protesters actually took some of the company executives as Caterpillar hostage and the cops refused to intervene calling it a normal part of business/employee negotiations.