It's still surprising to me that this story is catching on slowly. It should be setting the blogosphere and citizen journalist world on fire. Here is a clip from a recent article by Timothy Karr on Common Dreams. Karr is with Save the Internet, and there is an action on their front page you can take on this issue:
Verizon has big plans for the Internet. And if that doesn't worry you, it should.
The company is trying to overturn the Federal Communications Commission's Open Internet Order, which prevents Internet service providers from blocking, throttling or otherwise discriminating against online content.
And in court last Monday, Verizon lawyer Helgi Walker made the company's intentions all too clear, saying the company wants to prioritize those websites and services that are willing to shell out for better access.
She also admitted that the company would like to block online content from those companies or individuals that don't pay Verizon's tolls.
In other words, Verizon wants to control your online experience and make the Internet more like cable TV, where your remote offers only the illusion of choice.
I posted this article and a little write up on several email lists I belong to, and the only response I received was from a colleague criticizing Google and other tech companies for "being new players in the short selling food chain". His site, Pueblo Lands, will most assuredly be impacted by net tiered payment structures:
Many tech companies now have internal investment offices or specialized subsidiaries that are tasked with managing their billions. These in-house money managers at companies like Apple, Google, and Cisco control more stocks and bonds than most hedge funds and private equity firms, even if their investment strategies are much more conservative. Some companies have upwards of $100 billion in investments, mostly in government bonds, but enough in corporate bonds and stocks to provide a multi-billion dollar source for hedge funds to borrow from.
What do I take from this? I take that Google and these other tech companies, that are amassing huge reserves of cash, will survive the destruction of the net. But particularly low income folks, middle income folks, and small to medium size businesses who don't necessarily have cash in reserve, will be
most severely impacted by the destruction of net neutrality. News blogs, citizen writers, community sites will suffer from a decline in participation and use. A new class of elites will be created that have unleashed access to the net, while everyone else is confined to severely limited choices. There goes the neighborhood. This is not democracy; this is not freedom of speech.
With a rise in fees for tiered use, for example, how will libraries across the country, already reeling in most places from budget cuts and reduced hours, continue to provide net access to millions of low income users who rely on access for job hunting and communication? We can't afford to not be involved in this issue, for the sake of our right to access information, and share information on the net.
And yes, the big corporate owned newspapers and media outlets in the country will suffer also. Their parent companies with diversified holdings will survive, but these online media outlets may or may not. I'm thinking in particular about sites like www.nola.com, for example, the Times Picayune's site here in New Orleans, that relies heavily on small and medium size businesses to sell ads. Businesses want results, and if buying ads won't bring results in a market of tiered use of the internet, they'll stop buying ads.
I'll close with a quote from Timothy Karr, with Save the Internet (there's an action you can take on that site here), from his recent article:
In court last week, the judges asked whether the company intended to favor certain websites over others.
"I'm authorized to state from my client today," Verizon attorney Walker said, "that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements."
Walker's admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during oral arguments.
In response to Judge Laurence Silberman's line of questioning about whether Verizon should be able to block any website or service that doesn't pay the company's proposed tolls, Walker said: "I think we should be able to; in the world I'm positing, you would be able to."
The world that Verizon is "positing", is this the world that we want?