Google-Verizon Brings Opposition from Groups Key to Obama in 2008 Election

MoveOn.Org, which threw its support behind Obama in his battle with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination early in the 2008 primary season, launched a petition campaign and separate website, urging “Google, Don’t Be Evil.” Thousands have sent e-mail letters to Congress criticizing the deal, using a template provided by Public Knowledge, the group said Tuesday. San Francisco-based high-tech blog Giga Om carried the headline “Genachowski, Man Up! And Silicon Valley, Wake Up!” after news of the agreement broke.

Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said more than 300,000 have signed an electronic petition urging rejection of any deal between Google and Verizon. Signatures were also gathered by Free Press, MoveOn.org, Civic Action, CREDO Action and ColorofChange.org.

Free Press Executive Director Josh Silver said in an interview Tuesday that the Google-Verizon announcement has energized supporters of net neutrality nationwide. “The debate too often has been us saying, ‘These companies want to do bad things. Believe us. Take action,'” he said. “But there was an element of people not believing the threat was real.” The deal between Verizon and Google “showed their hand,” he said. “It finally showed the American public that these companies do want to carve up the Internet. They want to pick winners and losers in order to gain higher profits."

If reports are true that the White House has been leaning on the FCC to cut a deal with industry on net neutrality, that would upset groups like Netroots, “the very constituency that led the Democratic party into power in the last election,” Silver said.

"This is the kind of thing that galvanizes people,” said Mehan Jayasuriya, director of outreach and new media at Public Knowledge. “For a long time, one of the difficulties we had in talking about the issue of FCC authority over broadband is a lot of people thought we were talking theoretically, and I think even after the Comcast case, people didn’t really realize what was at stake.” Obama has expressed support for net neutrality, he noted.

Stanford Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett said reports last week in The New York Times that Google had agree to paid prioritization for its content didn’t prove completely accurate. “The concept that Google would agree to pay prioritization was red meat for the net neutrality crowd and led the left to dig in its heels and makes it politically almost impossible to envision a settlement that everyone could agree to at this point,” Moffett said. He said it may not matter much that the report was inaccurate. “In Washington perception is reality and the perception is that Google threw the net neutrality crowd under a bus and the process of making net neutrality rules simply can’t be left up to big companies,” Moffett said. “For better or worse that perception isn’t going away.”

"The Verizon-Google deal did seem to energize Netroots supporters by giving them something concrete to point to beyond just ’secret talks,'” said Paul Gallant, analyst with Concept Capital.

Liberal groups are trying to make net neutrality a “rallying point issue” as the November elections near, said Larry Spiwak, president of the Phoenix Center. But he said he doubts that will work, because most members of Congress are making jobs and the economy the focus of election. And Google was a strong Obama supporter in 2008, so the company probably carries significant sway with the administration, he said.

The activity of groups like MoveOn.org will have an influence on net neutrality, said Robert Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. But he doubts net neutrality will be a “lynchpin issue” for average Americans that could significantly alter their votes in the November election. “At the end of the day, voters don’t really care about this,” he said. Atkinson fears that by politicizing net neutrality, MoveOn and like-minded groups have “dumbed down” a technical issue “to the lowest common denominator,” he said.

Reaction Continues

More Democratic lawmakers criticized the Google-Verizon proposal in statements late Monday. “While I appreciate Google and Verizon’s commitment to net neutrality on the wired Internet, as more Internet traffic moves to wireless devices, we need to preserve net neutrality there as well,” said Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., said the companies forgot “essential elements” for any net neutrality law. “The proposal does not apply its prohibition against blocking or slowing Internet traffic to wireless broadband services, for example, and it doesn’t mention the need to ensure consumers’ privacy online, a glaring omission as examples abound of companies tracking and targeting users’ every click.” Markey added that the plan would limit the FCC’s ability to protect consumers and promote investment and competition.

"The agreement is a useful step in advancing the legislative process,” said Free State Foundation President Randolph May. And it sends a “strong signal” that the FCC should defer to Congress on defining the agency’s broadband authority, he said. “While I have some concerns regarding the proposal, say, with regard to potential limitations on prioritization, there are positive aspects as well, such as the reliance on adjudication."

In a statement late Monday, ITIF said the agreement is “an extremely constructive step in the process that substantially clarified the FCC’s role regarding the regulation of broadband and mobile Internet services. In most respects, the framework captures the consensus that exists across the Internet ecosystem to the effect that case-by-case review of Internet business practices is preferable to overly-prescriptive rules.”

Public Knowledge put out two statements. The second highlighted an issue that the group said emerged as it looked more closely at the agreement. The proposal “damages open Internet efforts through commission as well as omission,” Public Knowledge said. “The section on ‘case-by-case enforcement’ directs the FCC to defer to rules set by industry-led advisory groups. Combined with the proposal’s recommendation that the FCC have no rulemaking authority with respect to consumer protection and nondiscrimination, the agreement outsources the FCC’s powers and authorities to the very industries these rules are supposed to oversee.”