Verizon & Google Enter Reported Deal
for Tiered Internet Use, Is Net Neutrality in Jeopardy?
by Democracy Now
The internet and telecom giants Verizon and
Google have reportedly reached an agreement to impose a tiered system
for accessing the internet. The deal would enable Verizon to charge for
quicker access to online content over wireless devices, a violation of
the concept of net neutrality that calls for equal access to all
services.
The deal comes amidst closed-door meetings between the Federal
Communications Commission and major telecom giants on crafting new
regulations.
[includes rush transcript]
Guest:
Josh Silver, president and CEO of Free Press
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help
us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV
broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25,$50, $100, More...
JUAN GONZALEZ: We begin today with news about the
reported deal between internet and telecom giants Google and Verizon
that many fear could spell the end of the internet as we know it. The
two corporations were reported to have reached an agreement to impose a
tiered system for accessing the internet. The deal would enable Verizon
to charge for quicker access to online content over wireless devices, a
violation of the concept of net neutrality that calls for equal access
to all services.
Both firms denied they were close to an agreement that would lead
to a, quote, "two-tier internet." In statements, both Google and
Verizon reiterated their commitment to an open internet.
AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile, the Federal Communications
Commission has called off its closed-door negotiations with major
telecom giants on crafting these new regulations and pledged to seek
broader input. FCC Chair Julius Genachowski said, quote, "Any outcome,
any deal that doesn’t preserve the freedom and openness of the internet
for consumers and entrepreneurs will be unacceptable."
Well, for more on this story, we’re joined from Chicopee, Massachusetts, by Josh Silver, the executive director of Free Press, [freepress.net], a national media reform organization.
Josh, welcome to Democracy Now!
JOSH SILVER: Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: What are your major concerns, and what’s the latest you’ve heard on this reported deal?
JOSH SILVER: Well, before I answer that question, I want
to back up a little bit and get to this idea of net neutrality, which so
many Americans, so many viewers and listeners to your show, probably
think, well, that maybe—that’s just for geeks. The reason net neutrality
matters—it’s been the law of the land for the internet since it was
created about forty years ago—this is the principle that says all
content on the web travels at the same speed, whether it’s ABC News
sending it or it’s Democracy Now! or it’s your cousin’s wedding
video. And the key there is understanding that as internet speed
increases, then we’re going to see all media—television, radio, phone
service, emerging technologies—all delivered through an internet
connection. Any website could become a television network or a radio
network. It’s a complete game changer that breaks open access and
distribution of media content. So, when we have the changes in policy
deals like the Google-Verizon deal that we’re going to talk about today,
this is going to have a profound effect over whether that revolutionary
sort of opportunity is realized or whether it’s going to be squandered.
Now, with the Google-Verizon deal, there is an interesting
backdrop to all this. First of all, the United States is slipping
perilously behind other nations in internet speed and adoption. We’ve
gone from fourth to twenty-second in the last ten years, because of
failed hands-off policies, the same kind of policies that led us into
the financial crisis, same kind of policies that led to the Gulf of
Mexico spill, sort of, you know, government saying, "Go ahead, industry.
Do whatever you want." And guess what? Consumers get the bad side of
the deal.
In April of this year, an astounding thing happened. Because of
moves made by the Bush FCC, the current Federal Communications
Commission was stripped of all authority to regulate the internet, to
regulate—or not just the internet, but the internet service providers—a
key distinction. They are no longer able to say, "Hey, Verizon, hey,
AT&T, that’s not fair. You can’t price gouge consumers. You can’t
indiscriminately block content." And that comes in the backdrop of a
president who had said during the campaign, President Obama, "I am a
fierce advocate of net neutrality," and then he appointed an FCC
chairman, the current chairman, Julius Genachowski, as you mentioned, an
avowed net neutrality supporter. But then things got—started to get
really strange. Over the past couple of months, Chairman Genachowski
pulled industry leaders into his offices, no public interest groups, and
said, "I’m not going to make a move to reassert my agency’s authority,
even though that would be an easy thing for me to do. Instead, I’m going
to ask you industry players to broker a deal and try to create a
compromise that we can all live with. And I’m not going to worry so much
about the public interest groups." At least, that’s how it felt from
here.
And so, now we’re in this strange limbo where the FCC chairman is
sitting on his hands. He’s not reasserting the authority of his agency
that’s needed to protect net neutrality and bring competition and drive
down prices and get universal broadband to every American. And we’ve got
Google and Verizon, who, amidst this, announced a deal unexpectedly
this week—there had been rumors of it, certainly didn’t think it was
going to happen so quickly—a deal that would essentially say, "OK, it’s
going to be alright if we actually block or slow down content in the
wireless space. And in the wired connections to the home or to
businesses, we can sort of have something called 'managed services,'
which lets us slow and discriminate content as we see fit." And part of
what’s so remarkable about this, Google, for the last five years, during
this epic battle over net neutrality, Google has sided with the public
interest groups and with other internet companies like Skype and
Verizon—or, excuse me, Skype and Amazon and eBay and others to support
net neutrality and support consumers. So, them, this giant elephant—
JUAN GONZALEZ: Josh, I just want to interrupt for one
second. Before we get to the Google-Verizon deal, I want to backtrack a
little bit to the net neutrality issue, as you defined it. The argument
of the telecom companies has obviously been—and the cable
companies—"Hey, these are our pipes. Why shouldn’t the people who hog
more bandwidth and use up more of the bandwidth on our pipes be charged
more for what they do?"
JOSH SILVER: Well, here’s the problem, Juan. In the United
States, we have an incredibly uncompetitive market. And as a result, we
pay—the American consumer pays—far more money, orders of magnitude more
money, for much slower service than in countries like Denmark or Japan
or France or England. And so, what we’ve got is an uncompetitive market
with two or fewer internet service providers in 97, 98 percent of
markets across the country. And so, consumers don’t have choices. So if,
let’s say, that your Verizon provider is blocking or slowing down
traffic, and you don’t like it, you don’t really have a choice. That’s
problem number one. Number two, you know, losing net neutrality then
allows these companies to prioritize some traffic—video, say—and
de-prioritize others, and then what effectively happens is the internet
becomes like cable television, where Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and Time
Warner Cable decide what’s fast, what’s—how much it costs, and who’s
slow. And you suddenly have the exact same problem we have with cable,
with lack of access and distribution for regular people.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Now, do you think there may have been some
naïveté or errors on the part of the consumer advocates in this alliance
that’s been in existence now for several years, with companies like
Google and the eBays of the world, that there was a sense that they
would stick up for the right thing on the issue of net neutrality, but
now that it’s become—the proper price that they like has apparently been
offered by Verizon, they’re now willing to desert the advocates and
move over to a deal with the telecom companies?
JOSH SILVER: No, I think, at the time, it certainly was a
smart tactical decision. Remember, we had a presidential candidate in
Obama that literally said, "I will take a backseat to no one for net
neutrality." Those are strong words. And suddenly we have all these
powerful industry players echoing that sentiment and agreeing
specific—with the identical policy that the public interest community
wanted. Everybody thought that when Julius Genachowski took over the
Federal Communications Commission, he would quickly pass a net
neutrality rule and solve this problem and make good on the President’s
promises. It is a testament to the massive lobbying clout of the
telephone and cable companies that this has happened, that this FCC
chairman—certainly unexcusable, but it explains why he’s sitting on his
hands, although it really is to the surprise to all of us. We all
thought that this would not be a problem by now. Nobody expected the
court case in April that took away the agency’s authority. Many people
are not talking about the fact that it would be very easy for Chairman
Genachowski—he has the votes—to simply move what’s called a
reclassification of agency authority, and he could reestablish his
authority at the agency, and we can solve this problem.
And what’s really the most alarming thing, Juan, is the fact that
what we’re seeing is the same old same old, the same kind of approach
to policy making and regulation that we saw in the run-up to the
financial crisis, the same kind of oversight that we saw with the oil
spill. It’s the same kind of money in politics kind of running the show
and running the table in Washington. And at some point, we have to stop
it, because the fact is, if we can’t deal with this money-in-politics
problem and the campaign finance problem, and if we cannot ensure
quality journalism and access to information for the American people, we
have no democracy. It will not work. And those are the two lynchpins of
our current democracy, and every problem with every other issue circle
back to them. Fortunately, especially with this internet issue, there is
something you can do. You can go to savetheinternet.com. You can take action, join millions of people who get it and are starting to get involved.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And what about Congress, the overwhelmingly
Democratic Congress? Is there any hope that Congress can step in and
right what’s occurred right now and be able to put some limits on these
deals that are being put together by Google and Verizon and the other
companies?
JOSH SILVER: The reason Congress can’t act on this in a
way that’s reliable is the same reason that the healthcare bill got
glutted with loopholes. The telephone and telecom industry is second
only to big pharmaceutical in Washington spending. They run the table
with the US Congress, and it’s well known in town. The fact is, is that
we had all but one House Republican vote against the FCC having any
authority over internet service providers. We had seventy-four Democrats
from the House come out and say no agency authority. These are folks
that are really doing whatever the phone companies tell them to. And so,
if you leave this to Congress, you can be certain that, if there is any
legislation, it too will be riddled with loopholes, and the consumers
will pay.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Google is denying this. They said,
"We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for
carriage of Google traffic. We remain as committed as we always have
been to an open internet." Josh Silver, your response?
JOSH SILVER: Those are bogus and expected denials. They
also—it should be noted, they’ve been very opaque. They’ve been in short
statements and in Twitter feeds. The fact is, is that what Google is
saying is almost like saying, "We don’t want to sell cigarettes to
nine-year-olds, but we want to be able to sell cigarettes to
nine-year-olds if we decide to." That’s the analogy that you could use
in this case.
AMY GOODMAN: And Google’s slogan, "Do no evil"?
JOSH SILVER: I think it’s over. The era of Google doing no
evil just ended at the moment of this deal. Now, there is a possibility
they’re going to change the terms of this deal, which has yet to be
announced—it’s expected it’ll be announced on Monday—but if they go
ahead with this, Google is joining the ranks of the evil corporations
that will do anything to make a profit at the consumer’s expense.
AMY GOODMAN: Josh Silver, we want to thank you for being with us, president and CEO of Free Press. That’s freepress.net.