Don't Let Google Be Evil!

[frankie]

Since earlier this month, I've been receiving emails from SaveTheInternet.com and ColorOfChange.org, and apparently Google struck a deal with Verizon to "split" the Internet into two, so to speak.

Here is the full email from ColorOfChange.org sent today:

Dear Frankie,

Just after more than 30,000 of you spoke out about Google and Verizon's plans to undermine the open Internet, the details became clear. It's worse than we thought.1

As our friends at MoveOn put it, the Google/Verizon plan would "create two separate, unequal sections of the Internet — one for big business that would be high-speed and exclusive, and then the inferior, slow 'public Internet' that would be available to you and me."

The Google-Verizon proposal kills net neutrality while claiming to protect it — and worse, the companies want this proposal to become law. This is unacceptable. The FCC must act now — it's their job to write rules governing the Internet, not the corporations they're supposed to be regulating. Tell the FCC to reject this bad deal and enact strong net neutrality protections now:

http://www.colorofchange.org/googlefcc/?id=2054-1151719

The deal between Google and Verizon may be great for their bottom line, but it's terrible for everyday Americans. It calls for the creation of a "public internet" — which would remain open — and a "private internet," which would not. The faster "private internet" would choke the life out of the "public internet," leaving those who can't afford to pay to have their content or applications run with faster service struggling to keep up.

Worse, this deal would leave the Internet without any meaningful safeguards. If a broadband provider decided to break the few rules there are, the proposed fines are too low to deter providers from violating them.

This is what happens when big corporations get to write the rules that govern them: they win and the public loses. Speak out to demand that the FCC put strong net neutrality rules in place right now:

http://www.colorofchange.org/googlefcc/?id=2054-1151719

Earlier this year, the FCC looked like it was on track to ensure we could all enjoy strong net neutrality provisions. But a federal lawsuit forced the FCC to change its plans.

The FCC can still enforce net neutrality, but it first must revisit a Bush-era decision to deregulate broadband. By revisiting this decision and reclassifying broadband as a communication service, the FCC can do everything it needs to do to protect American consumers. And in fact, the chair of the FCC, Julius Genachowski, announced his intentions to do this.

But he has backed away from this plan under intense pressure from the telecommunications industry. Our federal regulators need to stop caving to big business and take a stand for us. The FCC has all the tools it needs to protect our interests and ensure the Internet remains a vital engine of information exchange and innovation. Genachowski must act now, before Google and Verizon's bad idea becomes an even worse reality.

Please join us in calling on the FCC to act immediately to save a free and open Internet, and when you do, please ask your friends and family to do the same:

http://www.colorofchange.org/googlefcc/?id=2054-1151719

Thanks and Peace,

-- James, Dani, William, Gabriel, Milton, and the rest of the ColorOfChange.org team
August 11th, 2010

Help support our work. ColorOfChange.org is powered by YOU -- your energy and dollars. We take no money from lobbyists or large corporations that don't share our values, and our tiny staff ensures your contributions go a long way. You can contribute here:

https://secure.colorofchange.org/contribute/

References:

1. "Google-Verizon Pact: It Gets Worse," Huffington Post, 8-9-2010
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/354?akid=1545.553362.A2TulY&t=7

Here is the full email from SaveTheInternet.com sent today:

Dear Frankie,

On Monday, Google and Verizon made it official: Forget "Don't Be Evil" — they're planning a massive corporate takeover of the Internet.

Their deal was met with a deafening public outcry — with hundreds of thousands of angry letters rolling in, and everyone from Silicon Valley innovators to leading members of Congress weighing in against the dangerous pact.

But one man was strangely silent: FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.

You'd think the chairman would have something to say, given that two of the biggest companies on the Internet want to put toll roads on the information superhighway, eliminate Net Neutrality on wireless networks, and turn the FCC into a toothless watchdog.

We think it's time Chairman Genachowski spoke up.

We think it's time he denounced this deal in no uncertain terms.

We think it's time he made clear that these behemoths can't write their own rules — because that's his job.

And we think it's time that he deliver on his promise to restore the FCC's authority to protect Internet users and make Net Neutrality the rule of the road — once and for all.

If you agree, add your name to our letter to Chairman Genachowski:

Dear Chairman Genachowski,

Google and Verizon's pact has sparked a massive public outcry. People are upset because we've seen what happens when we let big companies regulate themselves or hope they'll do the right thing.

Please denounce this deal and deliver on your promise to restore the FCC's authority to protect Internet users and make Net Neutrality the rule of the road.

We know such a move may not be popular on Wall Street or in Silicon Valley, but it's the kind of leadership we need now.

It's not up to Google and Verizon to make public policy. We're counting on you to save the Internet.

Chairman Genachowski has heard plenty from Google and Verizon. Now he needs to hear from you. Please sign the letter now.

Thank you,

Craig Aaron
Managing Director
Free Press
SavetheInternet.com

P.S. Google let us down in striking this deal. But its betrayal has brought unprecedented attention to the need to protect the open Internet. We must keep the pressure on the FCC. Please forward this e-mail widely and share the letter on Facebook and Twitter.

What do you think of all of this? Is it really serious or just an overreaction? I support net neutrality. Do you?

Funny how Google supposedly had a motto: "Don't Be Evil!"

Let's debate!

[TheGuySim]

WUUT!? o_o

[Safyre420]

LOL this made me laugh, even if they were able to do something like this, it would be literally impossible for them to do what they propose, what with all the hackers and what not out there in internet land that would be actively working against this "toll booth" idea. Not to mention it would also be impossible for them to do this to the entire internet.

[socherish]

This is scary...O_o. Impossible, maybe, but the idea that they would even TRY to do this makes me sick.

[mustluvcatz]

Verizon isn't the only phone/internet company around- nor are they everywhere. Besides that, Google pretty much sucks.

I don't see either of them having the power to control anything. Wasn't Verizon taken over by another company anyway? (We have Verizon where I live- they're called something else now..think Frontier is in the name.)

[Purity4]

That, my friend, is called spam mail. :rofl:

They'll tell you anything and use any scare tactic to get your money.

[Oaktree]

I doubt that this is true. First, it is from a third party source that makes no reference to where it found this information. Second, there would never be an internet restricted to corporations only because it would be far more sensible to allow access to anyone willing to pay for it. I have heard that there have been efforts to allow internet service providers to restrict certain competitor sites, but I doubt this will happen, as that would makes the internet far less useful than it is now and ISPs would probably end up losing money.

[Nekowolf]

@Oaktree

Actually, net neutrality in itself has been a debate for quite a while. I don't know the details, but I've heard snippets about this deal between them elsewhere, as well as an official statement or two talked about. So there is some kind of deal, yes.

[frankie]

It isn't spam, it's from a real website in which I signed up with last year or the year before. It's like the HRC but for Internet-related rights. I don't know how true or false the deal really is, but if you go to their website, there are sources and what have you. I just thought that this would be an interesting debate. Google's definitely bound to lose some respect from some people, regardless. We shall see what happens.

[kattenijin]

Tomorrow's internet is wireless. Period. Today's wired internet is going the way of the VCR. And tomorrow's wireless internet is exempt from these rules -- meaning that companies CAN block or degrade traffic to legal sites, they CAN favor certain traffic over other traffic, etc. What does that mean? It means if you want to see a video of the newest iPhone on your Droid, you'd better go put on a pot of coffee, because it could be a while. Using Comcast but you want to check out Verizon's prices? Go get yourself to the library where they still have them old wired computers, because Comcast Wireless doesn't support access to "Premium" sites without an extra fee.

The internet goes from the open and equal-access portal you've come to love to this:

http://dvice.com/assets_c/2009/10/net-neutrality-thumb-550xauto-27419.jpg

Please call your representative. The internet was built with tax dollars -- it's a public resource just like a highway. Corporations should not be allowed to discriminate based on whether or not they like your packets.

[Nekowolf]

Unfortunately, I fear most of them don't even know jack shit about the internet in the first place, how it works and such. I mean, Christ, you had the late Ted Stevens say it's like "a series of tubes." That's why I have my doubts that it'll as much attention as it should. Because most of them don't understand this stuff in full context.

[whiterider]

I appreciate people being upset by this, but really the solution is simple - if you use Verizon, switch to another ISP. I doubt this venture will be profitable enough for it to become industry standard, especially if Verizon start haemorrhaging customers over it.

[edejan]

I appreciate people being upset by this, but really the solution is simple - if you use Verizon, switch to another ISP. I doubt this venture will be profitable enough for it to become industry standard, especially if Verizon start haemorrhaging customers over it.

The solution is not so simple if you live in a rural, underserved area such as those of us who live in farm country USA. There are few if any alternative providers in many rural areas. So you're stuck with what's available. And this will become the industry standard because the providers will all do it (for example, cable TV...look how controlled and expensive that has become and how much REAL choice is there?).

The internet has been kept free despite the fact that Pres. Bush "reclassified" it to take it away from the umbrella protection of the FCC about a decade ago. The providers had not yet taken advantage of this reclassification but recently Comcast brought suit to be allowed to channel and tier service according to their corporate goals. They won the case.

I, along with a quarter million others, bombarded the newly Obama-appointed Chairman of the FCC, Julius Genachowski asking him to again classify the internet as a public service, not an "information service" such as telephones which are under the control and manipulation of the corporate profit driven providers. He at first seemed responsive but has been very silent since Google announced its plan for the future of the internet with Verizon a few days ago.

These providers will be the "gatekeepers" of the internet and can channel traffic to those entities which PAY them for the privilege of being first in line. For example, you may want to look up certain information...your search will be channeled to Google or to the site it's paid by, rather than to the many other viable sites out there. Now all such traffic has an equal availability. The new rules would end that model and the internet would no longer be a vehicle for open channeling and communication.

The obvious step is that connection speed will be tiered, with the fastest going to the most expensive (probably corporate) tiers and the rest of us getting the lower levels of speed. Another argument in support of net neutrality is that the good old USA is far behind many, many other countries in the speed of internet access and our costs are much higher.

Pres. Obama stated that net neutrality was one of his highest goals during his campaign but he has not weighed in on this argument as yet. The fear is that the new "plan" has been decided behind closed doors, by the corporations who would most profit from the control and manipulation of the internet. Those of us who especially love to spend time on the 'net need to be knowledgeable on this matter and ready to fight for net neutrality at all costs. This is the defining issue of our time and the future of the internet as we know it is in grave peril. Please, everyone commenting on this forum read up on it. The Huffington Post has some good and informative articles on this subject.

[Safyre420]

The solution is not so simple if you live in a rural, underserved area such as those of us who live in farm country USA. There are few if any alternative providers in many rural areas. So you're stuck with what's available. And this will become the industry standard because the providers will all do it (for example, cable TV...look how controlled and expensive that has become and how much REAL choice is there?).

The internet has been kept free despite the fact that Pres. Bush "reclassified" it to take it away from the umbrella protection of the FCC about a decade ago. The providers had not yet taken advantage of this reclassification but recently Comcast brought suit to be allowed to channel and tier service according to their corporate goals. They won the case.

I, along with a quarter million others, bombarded the newly Obama-appointed Chairman of the FCC, Julius Genachowski asking him to again classify the internet as a public service, not an "information service" such as telephones which are under the control and manipulation of the corporate profit driven providers. He at first seemed responsive but has been very silent since Google announced its plan for the future of the internet with Verizon a few days ago.

It is actually very simple, if you don't live in America anyway since Google and Verizon are both American companies and the Internet is multi-national, there is literally no possible way that Google and Verizon could control the whole of the internet.

These providers will be the "gatekeepers" of the internet and can channel traffic to those entities which PAY them for the privilege of being first in line. For example, you may want to look up certain information...your search will be channeled to Google or to the site it's paid by, rather than to the many other viable sites out there. Now all such traffic has an equal availability. The new rules would end that model and the internet would no longer be a vehicle for open channeling and communication.

The obvious step is that connection speed will be tiered, with the fastest going to the most expensive (probably corporate) tiers and the rest of us getting the lower levels of speed. Another argument in support of net neutrality is that the good old USA is far behind many, many other countries in the speed of internet access and our costs are much higher.

Except you left out one key point, connection speeds are ALREADY tiered. Fiber Optics and T-lines, which are the most expensive, aren't publicly available, it is mostly used for corporations, governments(local, state and federal in the US) and educational institutions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadband_Internet_access

[frankie]

I'm not surprised, though. The Internet is huge and it only keeps growing. I guess it was expected that someone powerful would profit from it.

[Nekowolf]

The solution is not so simple if you live in a rural, underserved area such as those of us who live in farm country USA.
I can vouch for this. I live out in the rural farmlands. Like I said in another topic, when it comes to cable, we only have Charter. That's it. And Charter is the worst cable company you can have, but we don't have a choice.

[kattenijin]

The solution is not so simple if you live in a rural, underserved area such as those of us who live in farm country USA.

You don't even have to be in a rural area. I live 45 min outside NYC in what would be considered a fairly developed area in terms of access. However, the development I live in has access to TWO and ONLY TWO internet providers, the cable company and Verizon. And, for whatever reason, dial-up is a joke, the ammount of dropped connections is what drove me to pay almost tripple the cost, just to not have the aggrivation.

[Mortimer 2]

Hey,what do you mean?
Google is my Hero. (http://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz185/Alwiwolf/List.jpg) :lol:
That is called Spam.

[Safyre420]

I can vouch for this. I live out in the rural farmlands. Like I said in another topic, when it comes to cable, we only have Charter. That's it. And Charter is the worst cable company you can have, but we don't have a choice.

Charter is actually more awesome than Comcast in my area, I also have charter. Other options for me are the dsl types, the local cable company(which is a joke since they only got better cable service and what not because charter came close to taking ALL of their customers lol). But go 5 min away from my house, your only option would be wireless or dial-up, and in some neighborhoods, one end can have cable access while the other end doesn't.

[Oaktree]

Comcast is just about the worst cable company there is. Their cable sucks, and their customer service sucks even worse. In fact, they have repeatedly made the Customer (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/the-customer-service-hall-of-shame-2010.aspx) Service (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/ConsumerActionGuide/the-customer-service-hall-of-shame-2009.aspx) Hall (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SmartSpending/ConsumerActionGuide/TheCustomerServiceHallOfShame.aspx) of Shame (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/Advice/TheCustomerServiceHallOfShame.aspx). We had Comcast until it got to be unbearable, so we switched to Verizon. We have one other option, satellite dish, though I think that would entail cutting down a tree or two.

[perihelion]

Except you left out one key point, connection speeds are ALREADY tiered. Fiber Optics and T-lines, which are the most expensive, aren't publicly available, it is mostly used for corporations, governments(local, state and federal in the US) and educational institutions.




If and when the National Broadband Network is completed, that will no longer be true here in Australia, since as we speak the Labor government is spending in excess of $10bn to provide "fibre to the home" connections as well as optical data services to schools and small business - up to 100Mbps. The Coalition's attempt to match that would only reach 12Mbps, which is not much better than what I have right now. (I have mobile broadband, and the maximum speed for HSDPA networks in Australia is 7-8Mbps.) Worse, Tony Abbott has publically admitted he knows nothing about how the internet works and he hasn't even made any attempt to learn.


I am GOBSMACKED that ISPs in the US are allowed to control what people see and use online based on what they pay. Companies in the US have far too much leeway with their business practices. If there's ANY ISP in Australia practicing that kind of money-grubbing censorship, I'd like to see it. It's bad enough that I have to deal with bandwidth caps and the occasional bout of shitty reception, but at least I can access whatever site I like, use file sharing, torrenting and services like Steam. Also, if I go over my monthly limit of 6GB, I can just whip out my debit card and buy more bandwidth.

[Purity4]

I am GOBSMACKED that ISPs in the US are allowed to control what people see and use online based on what they pay. Companies in the US have far too much leeway with their business practices. If there's ANY ISP in Australia practicing that kind of money-grubbing censorship, I'd like to see it. It's bad enough that I have to deal with bandwidth caps and the occasional bout of shitty reception, but at least I can access whatever site I like, use file sharing, torrenting and services like Steam. Also, if I go over my monthly limit of 6GB, I can just whip out my debit card and buy more bandwidth.

So can I, in the US. This is all just spam mail, there is nothing true to the claim.

[Elyasis]

It's been rumored for so long that there must be some sliver of truth to this. I'm especially concerned because it seems that these days whoever can pay more gets the ear of congress. By these days I mean the last half century or so.

[frankie]

Whether it's true or false is one thing, but what I had received wasn't spam; it's from a real organization. Just visit the website to see for yourself.

[Lavaster]

I hope it's false; I would NOT want this to happen! Google's already VERY money-hungry, buying every site they see, like YouTube.

[frankie]

Another email from ColorOfChange.org so that people can stop thinking that this is spam, but this one is more positive:

Dear Frankie,

You and more than 300,000 others have demanded that Google back off its deal with Verizon to kill network neutrality. In Mountain View, CA on Friday, we delivered your message right to their front door.

ColorOfChange.org executive director James Rucker and nearly 100 others gathered outside of Google Headquarters to deliver petitions signed by members of MoveOn, CREDO Action, Free Press, PCCC, and ColorOfChange.

The event was a huge success and received a great deal of press coverage, communicating the public outrage over Google's bad proposal, while also pushing the conversation about the need to protect the open Internet into the mainstream. Here are just a few examples of the media coverage you helped generate (click links below to read/watch), and the press is still continuing:

Print:

The New York Times - "Google Plan Disillusions Some Allies"
San Francisco Chronicle - "Activists pressure Google on net neutrality"
Wired - "Net Neutrality Protesters Call for Google to Stand Tall"
San Jose Mercury News - "Google's proposal sparks protest"
Daily Finance - "Protesters at Google HQ Demand End to Verizon Net Neutrality Proposal"
Television (SF Bay Area, home of Google):

CBS - "Protest at Google Over Net Neutrality Deal" & "Net Neutrality Advocates to Protest at Google HQ"
ABC - "Google Faces Protest Over Net Neutrality Stance"

It all happened because you spoke out. Thank you. Your voice is helping to demonstrate to the media, Congress, and the Obama administration that regular folks around the country refuse to let giant corporations take away the fair, open, and discrimination-free Internet we've come to rely upon and value.

Please keep up the great work. Your petition signatures, your phone calls, your visits to congressional offices — they all matter, and Friday's rally demonstrated it.

Thanks and Peace,

-- James, Dani, William, Gabriel, Milton, and the rest of the ColorOfChange.org team
August 16th, 2010

Please support our work to save the Internet. It takes a lot of work, and a lot of money, to keep this campaign going. If you appreciate the work we're doing to protect Internet freedom, please consider donating any amount you can today:

https://secure.colorofchange.org/contribute/

I didn't donate, but enough people have. This is a real organization. A simple Google search can show you; or better yet, the links in my post is faster.