News

Google-Verizon deal raises Eshoo's eyebrows

 

News about a potentially game-changing deal between Mountain View's Google and Verizon has caught the attention of local Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, D-Menlo Park, who has "real concerns" that the deal risks undermining efforts by the FCC to maintain net neutrality and could "widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots" online.

The New York Times reported Wednesday that a deal is in the offing between Google and Verizon for Android-equipped phones that would "allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content's creators are willing to pay for the privilege."

Advocates of net neutrality say such a deal would set a precedent and lead to more companies like Google paying for trouble-free access to online content, while blocking or slowing down access to other content and online applications. The deal has been widely cast among Internet denizens as a violation of Google's "don't be evil" policy.

As far as Eshoo is concerned, "I remain a champion to ensure that the next Google is able to flourish on the Internet, and not have its content sit in the slow lane."

"FCC Chairman Genachowski is making progress on net neutrality, but he must act quickly to protect an open and free Internet," Eshoo writes. "And I believe these reported side deals by companies risk undermining his efforts.

Eshoo, who sits on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, also said such a deal could lead to costlier Internet access for consumers.

"Premium pricing for access to the Internet, whether accessing it via phone or Internet, is bad for consumers, especially those who can't afford to pay for high speed access," she writes. "This would widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots."

Google has denied that the deal would end net neutrality. CEO Eric Schmidt has told the press that Google does not believe that certain content providers should have priority over others, but Google does believe that certain types of data should have better connectivity, such as digital voice.

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by Old Palo Alto
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 9, 2010 at 9:43 am

What could she possibly know about the implications of such a deal, being the technical wizard that she is?! Typical politician who is clueless and wants to attach her name and 'concerns' onto a big ticket issue.


Like this comment
Posted by important issue
a resident of College Terrace
on Aug 9, 2010 at 9:51 am

Clearly, she is smarter than some of the people posting in this forum because this is a very important issue.


Like this comment
Posted by important issue
a resident of College Terrace
on Aug 9, 2010 at 11:28 am

Big announcement from GOOG and VZW this morning. Probably not everything that Boxer wanted, but it is a lot better than what could have happened.


Like this comment
Posted by Sylvia
a resident of Monroe Park
on Aug 9, 2010 at 11:47 am

@Old Palo Alto:
I agree with Important Issue. Net neutrality is critical to maintain equal access to the internet for non-profits.


Like this comment
Posted by It
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Aug 9, 2010 at 4:20 pm

Web Link


Google Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. on Monday called on legislators to enact laws preventing Internet carriers from blocking websites or selectively delaying access to content common on the Internet today, while leaving the door open for private "specialized networks" down the line.

Read more: Web Link

Well .. this is the essence of the V-G "deal". Wonder what No-Nuttin' Anna Eshoo will object to about this?


Like this comment
Posted by important issue
a resident of College Terrace
on Aug 9, 2010 at 4:29 pm

The "deal" that was announced today covers only landline networks. The wireless internet is not covered. Initial reaction from tech bloggers is not especially positive.


Like this comment
Posted by It
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Aug 9, 2010 at 5:41 pm

As network speeds increase, this issue of "net neutrality" becomes less interesting. Pushing for better networks should be the topic of discussion, not "neutrality".

Eshoo has never shown any understanding of the issues of "the Net to come" .. she is just a puppet on a string.


Like this comment
Posted by Old Palo Alto
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 9, 2010 at 8:19 pm

"As network speeds increase, this issue of "net neutrality" becomes less interesting. Pushing for better networks should be the topic of discussion, not "neutrality"."

This is exactly right. This will be a non issue like Y2K.

The real issue here is should politicians dabble in markets where they have little or no domain expertise. Indeed, should politicians dabble in markets at all?! The consequences of such dabbling is often short term political gain at the expense of long term market problems.


Like this comment
Posted by No shock
a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Aug 10, 2010 at 4:42 am

Google founders supported Dems/Obama, openly and quite fully, with meetings in their facilities, fund raisers etc. Google's culture is a very political one, where it is clear who "the boss" supports.

One of the reasons became clear when Tesla, partially owned by a Google founder, got tax funding loans of 1/2 billion... hmmm..just after Obama was elected, by a full Dem Congress.

The second one became clear when the FCC started pushing this "net neutrality" crap, which will give Google the single biggest advantage in this field, and effectively shut down the ability of little guys to crack into the field. It is, in effect, a type of government sponsored monopoly..in the name of "neutrality"...another Orwellian named bad idea.

Well, this is what an unholy alliance between business and government regulation does: makes really big winners, clasps into concrete the status quo of whoever is "in", and shuts down the little guy.

But, Eshoo will go along with it, no problem. She is part of the problem, why should she start being part of the solution?

This is no big shock. Just like it was no big shock, for example, to find out that Buffet supported Obama and then got millions of money to bail out HIS banks..



Like this comment
Posted by Toady
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 11, 2010 at 1:22 pm

I suppose it was better than having plastic surgery to raise her eyebrows.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

El Camino: Another scheme to increase congestion?
By Douglas Moran | 20 comments | 2,525 views

Couples: Philosophy of Love
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,609 views

Trials of My Grandmother
By Aldis Petriceks | 2 comments | 1,137 views

Lakes and Larders (part 2)
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 882 views