Evil Google joins forces with Verizon to sabotage the future of the open Internet

Telecom behemoth Verizon and search giant Google announced in a conference call today that they have agreed on a "joint legislative framework" concerning Net Neutrality "for the consideration of policymakers and the public".

The framework (which is available on ScribD) is apparently the public face of a private pact between the two companies, which was hammered out over the last few days. We obviously don't have the details of the private talks, but what Google and Verizon have given us to pick over — their "legislative framework" — is evidence enough that their true intentions aren't what they say they are.

Executives at both companies sing the praises of "openness" and "innovation" (platitudes that nobody is publicly against) whilst not acknowledging the giant exemptions they wrote into their own proposal. As Ars Technica's Matthew Lasar rhetorically asked: "How large a truck could you drive through these loopholes?"

A big one, as it turns out.

Consider the following provision from the framework:

Additional Online Services: A provider that offers a broadband Internet access service complying with the above principles could offer any other additional or differentiated services. Such other services would have to be distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband Internet access service, but could make use of or access Internet content, applications or services and could include traffic prioritization. The FCC would publish an annual report on the effect of these additional services, and immediately report if it finds at any time that these services threaten the meaningful availability of broadband Internet access services or have been devised or promoted in a manner designed to evade these consumer protections.

Emphasis is mine.

Translation: Internet service providers should comply with Net Neutrality principles, but they can ignore them as soon as they decide they're ready to make more money by setting up a fast lane for speedy delivery of certain content.

Then there's this:

Wireless Broadband: Because of the unique technical and operational characteristics of wireless networks, and the competitive and still-developing nature of wireless broadband services, only the transparency principle would apply to wireless broadband at this time. The U.S. Government Accountability Office would report to Congress annually on the continued development and robustness of wireless broadband Internet access services.

Again, emphasis is mine.

Translation: We don't need Net Neutrality on wireless networks, because it would interfere with our plans to make lots of money off of our subscribers.

Revealingly, in announcing the framework, Google and Verizon's top dogs repeatedly used the phrase "public Internet", saying they are all for keeping that open and neutral. But that implies that they intend to create and profit from a private Internet, not subject to Net Neutrality rules.

"They are promising Net Neutrality only for a certain part of the Internet, one that they’ll likely stop investing in," said Free Press, Credo Action, PCCC, MoveOn, and Color of Change in a joint statement. "But they are also paving the way for a new 'Internet' via fiber and wireless phones where Net Neutrality will not apply and corporations can pick and choose which sites people can easily view on their phones or any other Internet device using these networks."

"It would open the door to outright blocking of applications, just as Comcast did with BitTorrent, or the blocking of content, just as Verizon did with text messages from NARAL Pro-choice America. It would divide the information superhighway, creating new private fast lanes for the big players while leaving the little guy stranded on a winding dirt road."

We agree. This "framework" is a nonstarter... there's nothing in it that is new or useful. It doesn't advance the cause of Net Neutrality. It undermines it.

Judging by emails, tweets, and status updates I've seen today, many activists appear to be wringing their hands, wondering, why is Google doing this? Well, that's an easy one. Because they think they can profit, that's why.

We hate to say, We told you so, but we saw this coming.

We've been trying to sound the alarm in response to Google's assault on user privacy for some time now, but sadly, many other activists have reacted indifferently. Google has been mistakenly viewed by some folks as a progressive force which shares the values of our movement. But it's not. It's invasive, secretive corporation. It's time for Google fans to wake up and realize what's going on.

"No one trusts Google or any company entirely, but Google has always portrayed itself as an honest broker of what's on the Internet," observed Free Press founder Tim Wu, commenting on the rumored pact in a column on Friday for Slate.

"If it's lying or playing favorites, that makes it harder to trust. That's why those people at Google who still believe in the company's founding principles need to take back the firm, so to speak, and understand that its wireless ambitions and Washington deal-making could damage the integrity of the whole venture."

What is there to "take back"? Google's assault on user privacy — which predated its marriage with Verizon — has been going on for a long, long, long time. For Google to regain our trust, it would have to make a serious commitment to user privacy. That commitment would have to be backed up with action, including the discontinuation of certain products (like Google Analytics).

We don't see that happening, because Google profits from knowing more about all of us, just as Verizon profits from being able to self-regulate.

As I implied earlier when I described the Verizoogle proposal as a nonstarter, we at NPI resoundingly reject this framework. We join with The Seattle Times in calling for elected leaders and regulators to follow suit:

Wake up Mr. President, reintroduce yourself to your campaign personas, which was shocked and appalled by the potential tampering with a technology that thrived, prospered and evolved thanks to open access for new ideas, devices and software.

The next few days and weeks will introduce a brave, new world of murky language about "managed services" and other contrivances by ISP lobbyists to sell their plan not to treat all customers equally.

The moment is ripe for the Federal Communications Commission and chair Julius Genachowski to reclaim the moral and legal authority to protect American consumers. A judicial setback in the FCC's ability to regulate broadband only means the agency's authority needs to be broadened and affirmed by Congress.

The FCC has signaled its irritation with today's deal, but they need to do more than that. The FCC's Democratic commissioners need to publicly affirm their opposition to regulations ghostwritten by corporate lawyers. The likes of Verizon and Google cannot be trusted to come up with rules that will ensure Net Neutrality. To borrow from an old adage, it's like appointing a fox to guard a hen house.

The people drafting the rules should be folks who actually believe in Net Neutrality, and are fierce advocates for the public interest. Which means they can't be people who work for a telecom company or an ecommerce enterprise.