From Jason Klamm
Having worked in new media for over a decade, I’m aware of the still-growing audience and capabilities afforded anyone who decides to start their media career on the internet. When I began, getting video online was next to impossible, but we uploaded a highly-compressed video to http://home.stny.rr.com/lordofdance and people spent the time to download the video (or let it buffer) and that led to the media opportunities we’ve been afforded today, which include pitches, developing concepts for other established companies, and feature film production. NONE of this could have been done without what is being called “Net Neutrality.” Without equal access to every website on the internet (after all, that is the purpose - to be able to see the world’s wealth of information without limitation), NO ONE would have seen our video. NO ONE would have seen the countless viral videos that came before and followed. NO ONE would have seen the need to create YouTube. And Google wouldn’t own one of its biggest properties, which finds a comfy home on its now-countless wireless devices.
Google, indisputably the world’s largest search engine, whose motto is “Don’t be evil,” has always maintained that they are supporters of Net Neutrality. Of course they are - in their early days, imagine how prioritized traffic for higher-paying websites would have quickly quashed their chances at becoming a contender. Imagine, then, an internet without Google. It’s almost impossible. What has grown from the efforts of a couple dudes in a garage is a multi-media, multi-platform corporate entity with the power to control what we find whenever we search on the internet - and we’ve given them that power, along with their own verb.
Naturally, when Google began talks with Verizon recently, they came under fire for “making deals” with an internet service provider (Verizon having one of the largest possible wireless networks in the world), but then quickly made it clear that they were not backing down on their support of net neutrality. If anything, they were securing the future of one of the tenets of Free Internet. Then yesterday happened.
Yesterday, Google and Verizon co-blogged about their talks. It begins:
Google and Verizon have been working together to find ways to preserve the open Internet and the vibrant and innovative markets it supports, to protect consumers, and to promote continued investment in broadband access.
Then continues to outline several key headings, among them a “Non-Discrimination Requirement”:
Prioritization of Internet traffic would be presumed inconsistent with the non-discrimination standard, but the presumption could be rebutted.
“Transparency,” “Network Management,” and “Additional Online Services.” Under the latter:
A provider that offers a broadband Internet access service…could offer any other additional or differentiated services. Such other services…could include traffic prioritization.
And finally:
…only the Transparency principle would apply to wireless broadband at this time.
This is a nice way of saying ‘none of these other ideas we suggest would apply to Verizon because it is a co-author of this suggested legislation.’
Now, after my initial frustration with these conflicting passages, I did have an attorney friend point out to me that Google is making a move in response to the recent Comcast decision, which effectively neutered the FCC as regards net regulation. He makes a strong point - there are plenty of FCC-empowering portions of this paper. That said, we’re still faced with one sad inevitability - a neutral internet is becoming less and less of a reality, and Google is not helping by giving wireless ISPs a free pass.
Those of us who have made our careers on the internet, knowing that we have the same chance of being seen as everyone else, are now in danger of losing that. This not only affects the internet, as the largest community in the world, but it affects an economy that is being largely ignored by the companies who have made the most from the very freedom they are now openly limiting.
Certainly, Google and Verizon make two sweeping efforts in what they’ve written, specifically:
The FCC would have exclusive authority to oversee broadband Internet access service, but would not have any authority over Internet software applications, content or services.
and:
Broadband Internet access[would be deployed] in unserved areas and to support programs to encourage broadband adoption by low-income populations… providers would ensure that the service is accessible to… individuals with disabilities.
Even with the best of intentions, it has to be admitted that Google is not opening up any can of worms for itself - no website, in their own self interest, would write a law limiting who could view or use them. Just as Verizon did not co-author any suggestion that limits their control over content. At best, this is dangerous.
People who want their content to be visible via mobile broadband could be shut out completely - it’s not to say that either Google or Verizon has such plans - but the door is open for that. Mobile internet usage is exploding, thanks in no small part to Google’s Android software, and those of us hoping to keep up with corporate interests who want to spread the word about their products to every phone possible are now facing a huge hurdle. The internet is predominantly mom-and-pop, with all of the choices and entrepreneurial and artistic spirit that go with it, and Google and Verizon are threatening to make the Wal-Marts of the internet even stronger.
I’m not suggesting such a piece of work be thrown out - it is a strong beginning for what might well have begun as a genuine attempt to protect the net from being completely unregulated, which would be dangerous. Frankly, though, that’s where we are - the internet is, indeed, completely unregulated. Any worst-case scenario could come true today without legal repercussions. But the market would speak. If the law were to protect such a move, however, the market would have no voice, because any carrier could restrict content from any provider it didn’t feel was paying them enough up front. Any step toward regulation, it would seem, is a good one. It also, on the other hand, needs to be a smart one.
