Steven Cloud

Google decides to be evil.

WASHINGTON — Google and Verizon, two leading players in Internet service and content, are nearing an agreement that could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content’s creators are willing to pay for the privilege.

Such an agreement could overthrow a once-sacred tenet of Internet policy known as net neutrality, in which no form of content is favored over another. In its place, consumers could soon see a new, tiered system, which, like cable television, imposes higher costs for premium levels of service.

Read more at the NYT

The deal marks the beginning of the end of the Internet as you know it. Since its beginnings, the Net was a level playing field that allowed all content to move at the same speed, whether it’s ABC News or your uncle’s video blog. That’s all about to change, and the result couldn’t be more bleak for the future of the Internet, for television, radio and independent voices.

Read more at Huffington Post

Do something about it here.

The ACLU on Net Neutrality

The cable industry is saying that Network Neutrality would violate the First Amendment because it would prohibit them from “expressing themselves” by distorting the flow of information over the Internet wires they control. Marvin Ammori has posted an interesting response.

Our view is that it boils down to this: The telecoms play two different roles: as speakers, and access providers.

1. Internet service providers (ISPs), including cable and telecom companies acting as such, provide information and services. They deliver video feeds and web pages and other content of their own. That is fine and in that regard, they absolutely do have a First Amendment right to provide whatever content they want to provide, or not provide.
2. But ISPs also play another role: they perform the public function of controlling the wires through and across which everyone’s speech flows. When they control the pipes, it is a free-speech imperative that they do that in a non-discriminatory way – just like the phone companies can’t decide what calls can be made over the phone - to ensure that free speech belongs to all.

It is essential that companies not be permitted to use role number two to advance their own particular interests and viewpoints per their free speech rights under role number one.

-Jay Stanley on Blog of Rights

[Support the ALCU]