You're Suspect, Google & Verizon

Your desktop computer is safe for now, but watch out for your smart phone.

Yesterday, the much-anticipated Google-Verizon "deal" was announced.

And, as it turned out, the rumors of a Google-Verizon collusion deal to kill net neutrality were much ado about nothing.

Instead, Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg made what they referred to as a "joint policy announcement" that was to be a "suggested legislative framework for consideration by lawmakers."

Interestingly enough, though, it only applies to wireline internet connections, and not the wireless internet connections linked to so many handheld devices.

Still, it seems a bit odd that two corporations are giving the government "suggested legislative framework" in the very industry they do business in. It would be like BP giving suggestions to the MMS.

For their story on the announcement, NPR spoke with Siva Vaidhyanathan, a professor of law and media studies at the University of Virginia.

He is weary as well.

"All of these companies have short-term invested interest in maintaining their power," he said. "Fundamentally, Google doesn't work for you and me, and Verizon certainly doesn't work for you and me."

Which is true, despite what Verizon's tag-line may say.

It will be interesting to see how this all pans out, but my gut is telling me to be careful when two corporate giants want to address public policy out of the goodness of their stocks, er, hearts.

Put It In Neutral

Who owns the Internet? Is the Internet a public utility? Should only a few companies have the ability to filter the Internet to end users?

These are some of the questions surrounding the effort to re-regulate the Internet by the FCC. Yesterday, the cause for net neutrality got a boost when the FCC voted to begin the process of re-regulating the Internet, which would potentially reverse the 2002 decision to deregulate the Internet, which since then left it up to the broadband providers to gate-keep the web itself. This re-regulation would not regulate the content of the Internet, but rather, would ensure that all users have equal access to the Internet and that providers could not discriminate and slow down or cut off a user.

The problem, of course, is that there are only a few major providers. Ever wonder why you only have two, maybe three options for broadband in your neighborhood? Ever wonder why the three prices are almost exactly the same, regardless of which provider you choose? Some call that collusion.

The phone and cable companies, of course, are loathing the decision. But others are applauding this change, such as Google and Dish Network.

And rightfully so.

After all, anytime the communications oligarchy (AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast) are sweating bullets, it's probably a good thing.

The Internet is too important to be controlled by a few parties without any regulation. The door has been opened to revisit re-regulation, which is good, as the public deserves a say in how the Internet is handled. After all, we've all seen the effects of little or no regulation, when companies promise to regulate themselves.

Freedom's Just Another Word For...Net Neutrality

From one Julius to another, the Ides of March took an interesting turn this year when FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski announced the new broadband initiative, which we discussed that week here on the DotLoop Blog.

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the FCC extended its regulatory push to include broadband as well as traditional communications such as telephones and broadcast TV, within its jurisdiction. This is in response to a Federal Court of Appeals verdict who ruled in favor of Comcast last month in a case over net neutrality.

Here's what happened: in 2007, Comcast had limited access to the Internet to some of its customers. The FCC told the cable giant to stop it, but Comcast argued that the FCC had no business in dealing with broadband.

This was true; in 2002, the big cable and phone companies (At&T, Comcast, Verizon, etc.) successfully lobbied to change broadband from being under the umbrella of "telecommunications" to include it under the category of "information services." This seemingly minor category change meant that the telecommunications companies could effectively police and limit the Internet as they saw fit, which is exactly what Comcast did in 2007.

Net neutrality advocates (those who think the Internet should be open and fully democratic), derided last month's verdict in favor of Comcast. Even as late as this past Monday, it looked as if the FCC would not have the guts to take on the telecommunications giants who would be left as the gatekeepers of the Internet.

But all that changed Wednesday, thanks in large part to a huge swell of grassroots support coupled with a barrage of e-mails and phone calls to the FCC; their decision to keep net neutrality alive was a big win for the public.

So, what does this mean for you? Simple. It means that, for now, the Internet is still in the public domain; that no one company or groups of companies can limit access to it. It means a more open forum with universal access, and it means that once-small start-ups such as Facebook and Google can innovate and grow to change people's lives. It means that services like DotLoop can continue to grow and enhance without fear of being limited by cable or telephone companies.

Basically, it means more freedom to express yourself to the world.