It’s a geek’s revolt.
The nerds are up in arms. The blogosphere is on fire.
From the frantic alarms that have sounded and doomsday panic in the virtual air, you’d think we were on the eve of destruction.
They may be right.
Yesterday, two giants of the internet world, Google and Verizon signed an agreement that may spell the end of the net as we now know it. Under the virtual haze of a concept known as “net neutrality” Google and Verizon detailed a plan they say will keep the internet open for all content without blocking or degrading web traffic.
On the surface, it appears that the two web behemoths are linking arms to protect the continued openness and integrity of the web. Critics, however, fear that beneath their cloak of altruism, Google and Verizon may be hiding a deeper agenda that could change the internet forever.
Advocates of a free web argue that Google and Verizon’s concept of “net neutrality” centers on the notion that all internet traffic is not created equal. Rather, they say that it opens the door to preferential treatment of some forms of content over others. In other words, the delivery of online entertainment such as movies or gaming may be accorded more bandwidth and a higher priority on the web than the photos of your Aunt Sadie and Uncle Willie celebrating 75 years of marital bliss.
I make no bones about it. I am a capitalist.
Who Makes the Call?
Internet companies like Verizon, AT&T and Sprint have spent billions to build up their internet delivery systems. They deserve to make a decent profit in exchange for the risks they’ve taken. Moreover, without these companies, the internet might still be restricted a few geeks at MIT or the JPL. Worse, without them, all of us might still be stuck in dial-up hell.
In their own defense, Verizon contends that it should have the right to decide which services get preferential treatment and which services should be monetized. In sharp contrast, “Free Webbers” see this pact as the first step in creating a caste system of internet haves and have-nots. These advocates of a “true” open web say that the deal will allow Verizon and other ISPs (Internet Service Providers) to establish a pay-to-play tier of higher bandwidth with more reliable delivery only available to major content providers like Google, Amazon or Sony who are willing and able to pay a premium for this enhanced service.
Internet activists opposed to the Verizon-Google accord see this deal as the first of many salvos threatening the web’s unique form of democracy. They also argue that if allowed to stand without challenge, this deal will subrogate the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) to private interests when it comes to regulating the internet. From their perspective, it’s akin to GM or Ford writing and enforcing their own safety rules.
Ten years ago, it was difficult for most of us to perceive the impact the internet would have on nearly every aspect of our lives. In locales from Iran to China, the web has been more than just a source of news, quirky videos and arcane information. It’s been a lifeline.
And Then There Are the Chinese
Recently, the internet world along with diplomats from around the globe, including the U.S. State Dept., were openly critical when the Chinese government tried to put the clamps on what it deemed to be controversial content available through Google. As this censorship drama played out, Google was roundly criticized when it initially caved in to the Chinese demands. Condemnation of Google later morphed into praise when it decided to circumvent the Chinese censors by redirecting mainland-based queries to its Hong Kong-based search engine, which, by treaty, was not subject to Beijing’s meddling oversight.
Verizon and Google are in business to make money. That’s the only duty they owe to their shareholders and investors. While Google’s technical end-around the Chinese government may have seemed like a victory for free speech and an open web, it was, first and foremost, a commercial decision. Google didn’t want to lose access to China, now the biggest single internet market in the world.
It doesn’t matter what Verizon and Google say about their deal. In the end, they will do what it takes to improve their bottom line, even if it undercuts our current concept of the internet as an incorruptible vehicle of free speech.
On this topic, the President and other elected officials must now weigh in. Like the bloggers and geek-speakers in a dither about this potential sea change on the web, they, too, must decide whether some virtual virtues are more valuable than others.
John Cohn is a senior partner in the Globe West Financial Group based in West Los Angeles. He may be contacted at www.globewestfinancial.com
