If Verizon and Google were trying to show support for net neutrality, they sure dropped the ball today. On a conference call with media just a couple hours ago, Verizon CEO, Ivan Seidenberg began explaining how companies might want to use a different network to send information. He took offense when Danny Sullivan of Search Engine Land termed it "alternative internet," but his further explanation did little to counter the naming. Here is Mr. Seidenberg's further discussion of the "alternative internet" after questioning from Erick Schonfeld of TechCrunch:
I just got off a media conference call with Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg.
They announced a new policy recommendation that would kill the Internet as we know it, if implemented by FCC Chair Julius Genokowski and other policy makers.
The old "wireline" Internet that will be irrelevant in a few years? We propose a "new, enforceable prohibition against discriminatory practices" on that.
New "wireless services" (aka the entire future of the Internet)? No equivalent nondiscrimination rules for that, but we'll "create enforceable transparency rules." That way, as Americans lose access to the free and open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away.
Just in case "wireless services" doesn't encompass the entire future of the Internet, a new class of "new services" is envisioned, which Schmidt and Seidenberg actively differentiated from "the public Internet." Basically, through private contracting, big corporations could deal directly with the Verizons and AT&Ts of the world to create the next YouTube, maybe dangle it without discrimination to the public just long enough for us to be hooked, and then discriminate like hell over it. But don't worry, the FCC will "monitor the development of these services."
Google, a company that I've long admired and currently hold thousands of dollars of stock in, just "went evil."
This letter was launched last week by 5 groups that use the Internet to organize millions of Americans around issues, and are now using the Internet to save the Internet itself -- Free Press, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, MoveOn, Credo Action, and ColorOfChange.
Why did Google cut this absurd deal, one that dramatically hurts its credibility in the online space?
Yesterday, if you listened closely, you could hear the sound of John McCain selling off the internet to his campaign backers, the cable and telecom interests. After being shocked by a 3-2 vote punishing Comcast for illegal behavior at the FCC, cable interests are freaking out and using every tool at their disposal to reinstitute discipline among wavering Republicans.
The cable and telecom pushback started with former telecom lobbyist and current FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, who is desperate to become Chairman of the FCC under a McCain administration, launching a salvo against internet freedom, claiming that net neutrality would lead to censorship of the internet and requirements that bloggers and sites like Google offer 'equal time' to different views. This incoherence was quickly picked up by the Drudge Report, all to be timed with the coming release of McCain's technology policy, which is slated to come out this week or next. McDowell, who of the five FCC Commissioners is by far the most favorable to cable, did this at the Heritage Foundation. He even warned his side that there are more dissident conservatives like Kevin Martin getting ready to come out for net neutrality, a clear sign they know they are losing this fight and need to reframe their strategy.
McDowell denounced net neutrality under the guise that it's intertwined with the Fairness Doctrine, which he says Obama will reimpose. McDowell wouldn't actually explicitly say that net neutrality and the Fairness Doctrine are the same thing, means, because he knows he'd get laughed out of the room, but he implied it. Here's his statement.
Last week, Al Wynn did a fundraiser at the office of a nuclear energy giant. He's doing another one, this time at a lobbying firm called Platinum Advisors. Instead of energy interests, this time it's telecom and cable interests. I've included the invitation and the email that came with it. James Clyburn, John Dingell, JK Butterfield, Bobby Rush, and Ed Towns are cohosting. Towns and Rush are two of the Verizon five.
Subject: Rep. Al Wynn Event Hosted by Whip Clyburn, Chairman Dingell and Rep.s Towns, Rush and Butterfield - Jan 15th
rep. al wynn, a key member of the energy and commerce committee, has a tough primary race on his hands and could lose.
he has been a dedicated public servant and understands the business community like few others.
if you care about, al, please help us help him.
the event is next tuesday from 4 - 6 pm at 514 seward square, se.
thanks and have a great weekend.
What's weird about this invitation is how proud AT&T and company are in doing the fundraiser and putting their names at the top. The PAC directors no longer realize that what they are doing is repulsive.
The aesthetics of corruption are tacky and insular, not evil. If you care about al is a personal touch. There is wide notice of this race among a certain slice of the telecom and energy lobbying world, and among certain incumbents.
I just got this over email from a Verizon lobbyist.
Verizon Wireless today announced that it will provide customers the option to use, on its nationwide wireless network, wireless devices, software and applications not offered by the company. Verizon Wireless plans to have this new choice available to customers throughout the country by the end of 2008.
In early 2008, the company will publish the technical standards the development community will need to design products to interface with the Verizon Wireless network. Any device that meets the minimum technical standard will be activated on the network. Devices will be tested and approved in a $20 million state-of-the-art testing lab which received an additional investment this year to gear up for the anticipated new demand. Any application the customer chooses will be allowed on these devices.
Verizon is getting both competitive and legal pressure to open its network, in the form of Google/Apple and in the net neutrality fight. It's still not tenable to have Verizon as a gatekeeper of new applications, as they are not a trustworthy third party and they have an economic interest in shutting other players out. But this is a sign that moving towards open networks in one arena forces openness elsewhere.
As an aside, it's interesting that all of the progressive progress on open communications networks happened during a Republican administration.
Subscribers to Verizon's high-powered fiber-optic Internet service (FiOS) are reporting that when they mistype a Web site address, they get redirected to Verizon's own search engine page -- even if they don't have Verizon's search page set as their default.
The change has been advertised by Verizon as a way to help users reach the site they were trying to get to, but some are concerned that it's done more to gain revenue from advertisements placed on the Verizon search site.
FIOS is the new fiber service from Verizon, and it is designed to shape content delivery for customers. I have heard secondhand that Verizon installer are telling their FIOS customers they won't have to worry about their internet setup anymore, and that Verizon will 'shape the customer experience'. Verizon is also apparently ripping out old copper wires after installing FIOS, so customers can't return to their old service. And then there's this.
Although Verizon opposes net neutrality, it has also said repeatedly that it would not block content or favor its own offerings over rivals--although it now appears to be doing just that.
So Verizon is outright lying about their intentions. The company is privileging its own offerings. That's what this was always about, those are the incentives in the system, and so that's what's happening. And here's the second example, in the mobile space, of the same exact phenomenon. The article is titled VoIP provider denied short-code access, and discusses how a company that found a way to offer cheap international calls using short codes was blocked by Verizon.
Jeffrey Nelson, a Verizon Wireless spokesman, noted Rebtel's short-code application was denied in May and that the firm did not appeal. Nelson said Verizon Wireless has a policy of rejecting short codes from companies that seek to compete with the No. 2 carrier, whether it be Rebtel or its traditional cellular competitors.
You can't get any clearer than this. Verizon is openly saying that you are not allowed to compete with them if you use their network, as well as going back on their work in terms of privileging their own content. Tell me again why we should be trusting these people to manage our ability to speak.
So what kind of person thinks that a pro-choice advocacy message is 'unsavory'? What kind of word choice is that? It's a good question, and goes right to the heart of this problem.
I wrote about Verizon policy chief Tom Tauke's lack of ethics last year in October, when he wrote that Verizon would use any means necessary to accomplish their deregulatory goal. Howie Klein noted something significant. Tauke was a right-wing anti-choice Congressman from Iowa until 1990, when NARAL spent $100,000 to successfully defeat him as he tried to jump to the Senate.
In one of the National Journal stories (July 23, 1990) Tauke is quoted saying "When NARAL comes into the state, I'm not going to sit back and take it." Apparently he hasn't moved on.
Tauke has given hundreds of thousands to in political contributions, mostly to Republicans. Why in the world should someone who considers abortion 'unsavory' have the right to censor political speech? That's the heart of the problem. I don't know for a fact that Tauke is engaging in political retribution against the group that cost him his crack at the Senate and his political career, or that this is a way of furthering his political agenda.
But we need the consumer protections on our communications channels anyway, so that we don't have to worry about someone like Tauke having the ability to engage in retribution against his political opponents.
Saying it had the right to block "controversial or unsavory" text messages, Verizon Wireless has rejected a request from Naral Pro-Choice America, the abortion rights group, to make Verizon's mobile network available for a text-message program.
The other leading wireless carriers have accepted the program, which allows people to sign up for text messages from Naral by sending a message to a five-digit number known as a short code.
Text messaging is a growing political tool in the United States and a dominant one abroad, and such sign-up programs are used by many political candidates and advocacy groups to send updates to supporters.
But legal experts said private companies like Verizon probably have the legal right to decide which messages to carry. The laws that forbid common carriers from interfering with voice transmissions on ordinary phone lines do not apply to text messages.
The dispute over the Naral messages is a skirmish in the larger battle over the question of "net neutrality" - whether carriers or Internet service providers should have a voice in the content they provide to customers.
"This is right at the heart of the problem," said Susan Crawford, a visiting professor at the University of Michigan law school, referring to the treatment of text messages. "The fact that wireless companies can choose to discriminate is very troubling."
In turning down the program, Verizon, one of the nation's two largest wireless carriers, told Naral that it "does not accept issue-oriented (abortion, war, etc.) programs - only basic, general politician-related campaigns (Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, etc.)." Naral provided copies of its communications with Verizon to The New York Times.
Nancy Keenan, Naral's president, said Verizon's decision interfered with political speech and advocacy.
"No company should be allowed to censor the message we want to send to people who have asked us to send it to them," Ms. Keenan said. "Regardless of people's political views, Verizon customers should decide what action to take on their phones. Why does Verizon get to make that choice for them?"
A spokesman for Verizon said the decision turned on the subject matter of the messages and not on Naral's position on abortion. "Our internal policy is in fact neutral on the position," the spokesman, Jeffrey Nelson, said. "It is the topic itself" - abortion - "that has been on our list."
Mr. Nelson suggested that Verizon may be rethinking its position. "As text messaging and multimedia services become more and more mainstream," he said, "we are continuing to review our content standards." The review will be made, he said, "with an eye toward making more information available across ideological and political views."
Naral provided an example of a recent text message that it had sent to supporters: "End Bush's global gag rule against birth control for world's poorest women! Call Congress. (202) 224-3121. Thnx! Naral Text4Choice."...
Timothy Wu, a law professor at Columbia, said it was possible to find analogies to Verizon's decision abroad. "Another entity that controls mass text messages is the Chinese government," Professor Wu said.
This is a direct attack on the right of assembly and the right to free speech. I know of several companies that sell mass texting services, and none of them will go on the record about carriers because they are afraid of them. And keep in mind, these telecom companies want retroactive immunity for breaking the law and spying on Americans.
I hope this will post! I have tried three browsers on my Mac and couldn't leave comment for Sen. Durbin so I am posting on my Diary. I hope someone will point Sen. Durbin here.
Dendron, Virginia is just one of the unsung parts of Verizon's Rural America roadkill on the information superhighway. I am sure others could tell equally saddening tales of woe regarding the lack of expansion of even what the TelCos and Cable companies consider to be broadband for Rural Areas.
For the last eight years, I have been calling and/or checking frequently (every time I pay my bill online in fact) to see when Dendron, Virginia will be welcomed by Verizon into their current broadband world - to no avail.
STATE BLOGS
