Hey, Free Press and Company: We Don’t Like the Verizon-Google Deal Either
by Seton MotleyOn Monday, World Wide Web Big Players Verizon and Google made officially public their seven self-agreed-to principles on how they think it’s best to run the Internet railroad.
This was–-and is–a bit of news, given that the two have been on opposite sides of the Network Neutrality debate since its inception–-Google for, Verizon against.
This deal was too much for the whacked-out, way-out fringe pro-Net Neutrality Leftists like Free Press and Public Knowledge, and they immediately collapsed into conniption fits.
The heads at Free Press have yet to stop spinning.
In dread anticipation of Monday afternoon’s announcement, they (along with MoveOn.org Civic Action, CREDO Action, the Progressive Campaign Change Committee and ColorofChange.org) delivered to Google’s Washington, D.C. offices 300,000 signed petitions against the proposed deal.
No one’s sure just how many of the 300,000 actually knew what they were signing, given Free Press’s horrendously dishonest track record on these sorts of things.
After the announcement, they immediately issued Free Press Urges Policymakers to Reject Google-Verizon Pact. But they still weren’t done–later in the day giving us Google-Verizon Pact Worse than Feared.
You can hear them hyperventilating all the way from where you are, can’t you?
Public Knowledge, meanwhile, launched their Google Sold Out the Open Internet — Help Us Protect It campaign.
All of this sound and fury signified the same thing–-Free Press & Company don’t like the Google-Verizon deal.
Well guess what–-neither do a lot of conservatives.
For fundamentally different reasons, of course. These Leftists want an all-out regulatory assault on the Internet industry–-implementation of full-on Net Neutrality, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) reclassification of the Web under the old school, 1930s land line telephone line regulatory regime, and any other government authority-increasing, job-killing measure they can come up with.
We conservatives, on the other hand, think the Google-Verizon deal cedes too much authority to D.C.’s proposed Electron Overlords.
I understand Verizon’s (wishful) thinking on this. They simply want regulatory stability–-a defined set of rules that are in place, not in flux-–so that they can stop worrying about when and where the government hammer is going to fall and proceed with doing business.
Businesses–-and their investment capital–loathe uncertainty. Wonder why the economy’s been inert–bordering on comatose–these past eighteen months? Because the federal government has been SO INCREDIBLY ACTIVE–-creating new laws, regulations and taxes with which the private sector has to deal. And that makes a tremendously uncertain mess out of our economy.
It’s like the Red Light-Green Light game you played as a kid-–if the government’s moving, the private sector comes to a screeching halt, waiting for the feds to stop messing with the economy so that they may resume building it.
They don’t want to invest money in an uncertain situation, and right now-–with the gaggle we have in Washington bulling their way through our economic china shop–-we are a quintessentially uncertain situation.
Verizon was seeking a way out from under the regulatory Sword of Damocles. So it seems they decided “Let’s cut a deal, settle the situation, and get out and back to doing business.”
But in their desire to get past this, Verizon cedes too much authority to the FCC – and is so doing tacitly agrees that the FCC should have a substantive role in Internet regulation.
We conservatives find this to be a preposterous proposition. The FCC has no business anywhere near the Web business. And almost everyone–even some pro-Net Neutrality forces–are aligned against their forcefully inserting themselves into the process without benefit of Congress.
And here’s the rub, the Verizon-Google deal isn’t even really a deal. For the FCC to be foolishly placed in charge of the Internet, Congress must first pass a law making it so. The Verizon-Google pact has no force and weight all by its lonesome – it must be a part of new Congressional action giving the FCC said authority.
Here’s hoping that this never comes to pass.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
35 Comments
I've never supported Net Neutrality for the very simple fact that nobody can explain what the **** it actually is in ten words or less. When ever extremely complicated issues are given bland, feel-good labels like "Neutrality," I assume that somebody's trying to trick me into agreeing with them.
Smaller Government! The swamp is a dyke and the overflow is a tsunami!
I use BING search engine, and firefox browser. When I got rid of internet explorer as my default and my google toolbar, my pc worked much better.
Since there aren't any widespread reports of abuse in the 'nets. I fail to see why the government needs to step in with a "solution." You shouldn;t be attempting to "fix" a problem that no one can really agree actually exists. At least with health care, most people could acknowledge that the system needed some change although what they did was 180-degrees wrong. But here, I don't see daily whining across "teh intert00bz" about how out of control they are and how unfair they are.
The Land of the Free – is no more! Is it November yet?
One in the hand equals two in the bush.
But Verizon and Google equal Barney Frank and Chris Dodd
I use Http://www.dogpile.com
It's a search engine that searches all other search engines.
More efficient AND I can stay ahead of the "SCRUBBER CZAR" who, if there are any INCONVENIENT links to stories the WH or congress wants killed, deactivates google links first, then heads for the smaller search engines.
Net Neutrality-? Bu**sh*t, it's Net-government take-over!
Get their hands off of it. Let software and parents control the porn and let us all decide as free Americans what we want to view at our own discretion.
We sound more like China every day!
Ten Words; 2000 more pages of regulations– covering speech on the internet.
As a programmer, I was all for Net Neutrality. The idea was simple at first: The government should say that speech on the internet is speech and have no laws against it, and neither should carriers. If a carier decided to regulate speech on their network, they would lose their common carrier license.
End of story.
Now it has been twisted towards a Chinese-style oppressive regime on America's side of the internet, by evil leftists like Obama. It goes to show that good intentions are easily twisted to evil means. It's like the Muslims imposing Shariah (a traditional system of taxes and beatings of non-Muslims) by calling Sharia opponents discriminators.
Thanks for that I'll check it out.
The net works now. If the government wants to fix it then they are up to no good,
Will the new company name be Ver-ogle?
Keep the FCC, Obama Admin. & all Fed Govt Regulation Agencies out of our Free Speech on The Internet! Especially The Obama socialist Administration! Obama/Pelosi/Reid have forced U.S. to be 70% Socialized against our will already! Fight against them forcibly taking blogging & communication privileges away from U.S!
When I argued Obama v. McCain (another bush) granted not much of a choice. My Democrat friends would always counter, how could Obama be any worse than Bush? They couldn't understand, think they understand yet? Big brother is standing on our throats, stealing our lunch money, and telling us we owe him our first born. Worse….naw…
First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then, they came for the Communist, and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionist, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.
Martin Niemoller
If Google and Verizon consolidate the standard for internet use, is it not easier for the government to wrap it up?
I'm convinced the socialist/progressives are really human race traitors.
Or GooRizon. Either way…they seem to be pushing us back toward that theoretical primordial ooze that they claim they evolved from.
It's hard to believe that a Corp. as powerful as Verizon is now running scared from an upstart company like Google. Perhaps they see the writing on the wall? After all…Google is challenging Bill Gates and Microsoft for future government contracts and seems to be crawling into bed with the Obamanation administration. I'm sure there is a LOT of influence FOR SALE between those sheets! Verizon is most likely thinking in survival mode right about now.
There is nothing neutral about net neutrality. It's the foundation for controlling speech on the internet. Google has already demonstrated what they are willing to do to suppress speech in their deal with China. No thanks!
Except China being a Communist Country is using Capitalism and it's economy is BOOMING……….
Who originated the idiotic idea that :
"They simply want regulatory stability–-a defined set of rules that are in place, not in flux-–so that they can stop worrying about when and where the government hammer is going to fall and proceed with doing business."
Verizon, like all big businesses, wants to cripple its competitors. Regulatory costs fall disproportionately on smaller, more innovative companies, the kind that grow and kill off their bigger, less agile competitors.
Verizon is the typical would-be monopolist that supports government regulation to maintain its market dominance without having to continuously improve its product, as the free market demands.
Verizon, Google and the rest all subscribe to the liberal/progressive belief that anything not directly regulated by the government will naturally descend into chaos and self-destruct. Because they deny the creative emergent order that markets produce they demand government regulation as a means of self-preservation. The free market does not have a pre-determined outcome and requires an agile and creative approach to assure profitability. Big businesses, hampered by their own inflexibility, are incapable of the fast, decisive movement that modern markets demand.
Apple recovered when they dumped Sculley and brought Jobs back. Sculley was an overblown accountant, good at cost cutting but about as visionary as the average politician. Jobs understood that going head to head against Microsoft and the Dell/HP duopoly was stupid, so he directed the creation of new products and created entire new markets.
Does anyone expect Verizon to create new markets? No company without the technical geniuses that created it (Bell and Edison have been dead for a long time) is capable of the kind of innovative action necessary to create new products. Modern businesses are run by people that excel at impressing their bosses, not at the fiercely independent thinking required for success. That's why so many big business leaders support Obama They recognize Obama as one of their own – a butt kissing, pandering social climber with good "people skills" but lacking any semblance of original thought.
Don't expect big businesses to be allies in the fight for liberty, they are liberty's worst foes because at the deepest level they deny the efficacy of innovation which is only possible in a free market.
I just switched to Dogpile,
Thank for the heads up Texas!
Ten words to describe Net Neutrality:
The principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally.
Of course, the devil is in the details.
You hit so many points that I totally agree with. If Verizon ends up some how getting their hands on internet control they'll figure out how to "cripple" your browser and if you want to search things it will cost you extra. It will be like reverse phone lookup—free search, but the answer will cost ya.
On Aug. 2, "New Zeal" posted an article about "LournoListas," who, including Google, are connected with an organization, which is financed by George Soros.
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2010/08/jounolist-sor...
"Obama File 109 "JournoList" – the Soros, Google, Free Press and Obama Connections"
Get rid of the FCC.
I like that. You've made your point!
How are you doing, Dave?
Google, $490 a share. Verizon, $30 a share. Do the math, nitwit.
Only an idiot such as yourself could oversimplify an issue as complex as this to such a degree. The problems in America today are largely due to people like you, who only look at money as the bottom line. You'd probably sell your own mother if you could make a buck off the deal.
(Do THAT math, moron)
You are so easy to bait. But, that figures. I suppose it is easy to bait someone who has no sanity.
Also, why would you choose to follow me? I'm a moron, according to you. Do you always follow morons? My guess would be yes.
If you are here just to “bait” people for your own amusement, you need to ask yourself if it's not time for you to grow up and get a life. You have just demonstrated yourself to be a liar by admitting to this action. No one will believe anything you say here from now on. You might as well leave now.
St. Peter, is that you? Ya' wanna lighten up on the "fishing?" The oceans are dying, the sky is falling, etc.
The principle that free enterprise should not be allowed on the internet.
"Google, $490 a share. Verizon, $30 a share. Do the math, nitwit."
Qualifies for "Post of the Day."
I guess the higher a share price is, the larger the company?
I wish that all high school students had to pass a basic finance course in order to graduate (but that would probably be "racist").
You must be logged in to post a comment.