Teletruth News Analysis, August 16th, 2010
On the web: http://www.newnetworks.com/googleverizon.htm
Google and Verizon:
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Verizon and Google recently created an "understanding"
over the Internet and
net neutrality titled:
"Verizon-Google
Legislative Framework Proposal".
The details don't really matter at this point. What
matters is --- Google is
not going to be a force
that will protect the public interest from the
controllers of the wires,
who are now engaged in serious anti-trust games.
Comcast, AT&T and Verizon are now lobbying,
funding astroturf groups, (fake
consumer groups), a horde
of paid-off minority groups, not to mention
corporate-funded think
tanks, state and federal Congressmen and Senators
--- all to make sure that
the wires are private property for their use, with
walled-in ghettos of influence
and control.
And because of their massive 'foundation' booty,
(who do you think is paying
for this largesse?) and their advertising dollars on broadcast and other
media, opposition, much
less media scrutiny, has been the sound of one hand
clapping.
Instead of questioning any of this, Google is essentially
going to bed with
them. Instead of calling
to re-open the networks to all forms of
competition, from allowing
different Internet Service Providers (ISP), or
programming providers on
the cable network, Google is making nice-nice.
First, they already have an agreement with Verizon
Wireless for their phone
Droid, and now they want to have favored-status
for wireline service,
focusing on net neutrality
- a non-starter issue, a cover-up issue.
Why is Net Neutrality not the issue? Because if
there was serious
competition, when someone
was blocked, degraded or had other problems, the
customer could simply take
their business elsewhere. Instead, through
consolidation and mergers
(and more mergers to come, such as
Comcast-GE-NBC), AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast's
money and power --- working
together --- is creating
a climate where the owners of the wires are now
allowed to take over the
entire wire for all services, including phone,
broadband, Internet and
cable, as if it was their own property for
personal use.
So what if
cable and even wireless
services. (told in an upcoming story). So what
if the phone companies have stolen the utilities, the "Public Switched
Telephone Networks", or that the cable companies
now forget there's
something called a 'franchise'.
They will say "regulation
blocks investment". What planet are they on? Since the 1990's deregulation
has given AT&T and Verizon over $320 billion to do upgrades of the
Public Switched Telephone Networks, the utilities. They took the money
and ran. We're 15th in the world in broadband, proving that point.
All of this is a serious problem as it means that
the public interest has no
counterbalance. Congress? One has only to look at the monies collected by
Congressmen and Senators from
Comcast, AT&T and Verizon. We documented how
many politicians on both
sides of the aisle are now campaign-financed by
these companies, their
associations and PACs, and are taking actions to harm
the public and back their
fenders.
http://www.newnetworks.com/letters.htm
The other DC-advocacy groups?
They are underfunded at best and without
actual clout, but good
for soundbytes.
And talk about anti-trust? If both wires are asking
for the same thing, to
be walled-in ghettos who
control all services, and both collude through
major price increases,
blocking competition and controlling the deployment
of broadband throughout
the
--- isn't that a cartel? The only connections into
the home are controlled
By one group of companies?
Where are the trust-busters? From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act
"Around the world, what
more commonly known as
"competition law." The purpose of the act was to
oppose the combination
of entities that could potentially harm competition,
such as monopolies or cartels."
No, the 'force' is going to the dark side. Be afraid.
Be very afraid.
Before for I discuss 'the Google Factor", let
me back track a bit and be very specific.
Essentially, the local phone networks were opened
to competition by the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.
By 2010, they are closed. Back in the year
2000, the old-AT&T and the unmerged-MCI (MCI
is now owned by Verizon) were
the two largest
households for long distance
and they had over 7 million local phone customers; competitors overall
had about 20% of all local service (by 2004). There were also active,
independent Internet Service Providers. In 2000, there were over 9,500
companies, such as AOL, and thousands of small companies in the market.
The irony is the fact that the phone companies weren't in the Top 10
of US Internet Providers in 2000.
And in terms of
delivering Internet service
to new customers,
had the largest growth
in history --- hypergrowth, to be exact, in the
number of lines, minutes,
revenues, and even profits. It was the small
competitors, not now-AT&T,
Verizon et al who brought
in the Internet --- a fact
regulators seem to ignore.
Then, starting in 2004, the FCC rewrote the Telecom
Act of 1996 and closed
the networks to competition,
putting AT&T and MCI up for sale as well as
putting 7000 Internet providers
out of business. The telcos and cablecos
simply took away the business
from the Internet providers who had built the
business but were prohibited
from migrating their dial-up customers to
faster speeds (broadband).
The companies also shifted monies that were supposed
to be used for
upgrading the wireline
networks to their wireless divisions --- so that by
now-AT&T and Verizon
controlled 80% of the wireless market.
Since that time, the only competition in most of
at best. The cable companies
--- the other wire into the home --- only have
20% of the local phone residential
market. The local telcos, Verizon et al,
can still raise rates whenever
they want because there is no competition to
drive down prices. And
cable competition? AT&T and Verizon have about 5
million upgraded-fiber-cable
households out of over 120 million; there is no
serious direct cable competition
in most markets.
Another irony? Some of
the cable networks were supposed to be opened to
competition. For example,
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) agreed to the
AOL-Time Warner merger because the company was not
only providing net
neutrality but also the
networks were to be open to Internet Service
Provider competition: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2000/12/aol.shtm
"Under the terms of the order, AOL Time Warner
would be: required to open
its cable system to competitor
ISPs; prohibited from interfering with
content passed along the
bandwidth contracted for by non-affiliated ISPs and
from interfering with the
ability of non-affiliated providers of interactive
TV services to interact with interactive signals,
triggers or content that
AOL Time Warner has agreed to carry; prevented from
discriminating on the
basis of affiliation in
the transmission of content, or from entering into
exclusive arrangements
with other cable companies with respect to ISP
services or interactive
TV services."
Brain dead (that's a technical term) regulators
seem to have forgotten this
requirement, much less
reviewed just how wrong that merger and the other
AT&T and Verizon mergers went. AT&T and
Verizon failed to upgrade the Public
Utilities as required by state agreements, raised
rates, and increased their
market controls, never
fulfilling the major 'commitments'. See:
http://www.newnetworks.com/mergersI.htm
Bring in Google.
Google could ask for the networks to be re-opened
to competition, thus
solving net neutrality.
But I believe Google woke up and said --- Heck, we
need to have access to
the wires; if we don't then we can't control our
services.
Google first decided to be a provocateur. They decided
to light a fire
pertaining to wiring communities
with fiber as a bypass to the phone and
cable companies and to
bring in high speeds. The problem is-these are only
for 'tests', not serious
nationwide deployments.
http://www.google.com/appserve/fiberrfi/
So, after the exercise --- it was a feign --- they
most likely came to the
decision that this side
of the business would not supply enough bandwidth to
enough people and the only
way to get into markets is to cut deals. The
phone and cable companies
would also take local actions to block any
building out, as they have
been able to get laws passed in some states to
block municipalities from
upgrading the networks Verizon or AT&T failed to
do.
Voila --- Google made a deal with Verizon for Droid
which brought them the
wireless market. And it
now seems that Deal Two was underway - wireline
connectivity for their
services, giving them favorable status on the
networks over the other
search engines, or other services Google offers.
Forget all the rhetoric, press releases, statements,
etc. Google needs wires
and doesn't have them,
so instead of confronting the network providers they
will simply go to bed with
them.
But here's the problem: The Public Interest. Google
was one of the few
companies left standing
who could be a counter-balance to the 'force'. Since
the wire companies are
in cahoots and are now lobbying, campaign-financing,
minority-co-opting, astroturfing
together, who's going to be the balance in
the force?
But the most important --- the corporate controls
will be so overwhelming
that the story will not
be told on TV or other major media. That's right.
Today, Verizon and AT&T spend enormous sums
of money on advertising. Do you
think any station who receives
the money will do a feature on the corporate
controls, much less other
indiscretions?
And when the Comcast and NBC merger goes through,
it eliminates major
networks, from NBC and
CNBC to Telemundo, from doing investigative stories
about the cable companies,
much less their buddies who spend so much money
on advertising.
So, Google and Verizon? This does not bode well dear reader.
Be afraid. Be very afraid. (Paraphrased from Yoda
to Luke Skywalker in Star
Wars.)
http://investor.google.com/corporate/code-of-conduct.html
PS: Verizon has always had a relationship with the
dark side. James Earl
Jones, Verizon's spokesperson for years, was also
the voice of Darth Vader.