Korporate Karma

The ectoplasmic B2B tendrils of Verizon have reached out and touched a friend of the Internet community, soiling her reputation.   We may have teased or even finger wagged YouTube when she found her sugar daddy, but we all secretly wished he would have picked us.

Verizon wireless, known to be untrustworthy, has inked a deal with YouTube (and her new sugar daddy) to exploit her form on the small screen.  And we are sad to see her cheapening.  As Om Malik said:

Despite Verizon network’s superior quality, I refuse to subscribe to them, because their (deck) interface, regardless of the phone, is the mobile equivalent of Chinese water torture. The thought that Verizon would decide what YouTube video gets shown on the mobile makes me shudder. (For better options⁴, we have some recommendations for you, which are more fun, to say the least.)

I feel the same way.  Verizon can provide a better overall quality of service, but be so anti-user and anti-community that their service quality actually has nothing to do with their usability or value. 

I'd also think that Craig McCaw's new Clear Channel service would save us all, but I'm convinced that Verizon will buy Clear Channel in the near future.  It's their best way to get the last mile without leasing from other carriers.

But, ClearChannel or not, I am hoping that more communities will be rolling out municipal wireless and bypassing the control of Verizon and others. 

Here's the crux of the issue:

Verizon is right

Verizon is operating wireless broadband to devices barely able to support them over a network that can be easily overtaxed.  It makes perfect sense for them to do things that limit the activities of users in support of network stability.

Verizon is wrong

The YouTube deal, while technically understandable, amounts to censorship.  Opt-in censorship, certainly, but censorship nonetheless.  And as Rummy said, "We don't know what we don't know."  So you never know what a censor is censoring. 

The evolution of the argument

As the connections to the Internet become seen more as a public good and less as a corporate service, the more likely the protections of the first amendment in the US or the charter of rights in Canada or other equivalents will become more enforceable.

The fear

As connections to the internet become seen more as a public good they will become more controlled by governments or global bureaucracies that will stifle innovation.  Internet service will become as overpriced and mundane as cable television.  And yes, Will Robinson, there is danger there.

The balance

Karma is all about balance.  Verizon will get theirs in the end.  The more that they are known as liars and censors, the more people will subscribe while looking for alternatives.  That is certainly my current relationship with Comcast.

You can't live with 'em, you can't live without 'em, I hope that somethin' better comes along.

But we, as consumers, need to ensure that Comcast and Verizon stay around.  We need to make sure that they get the message and change their behavior.  We need to likewise fight for alternatives like muni-wifi and Clear Channel.

The Internet is suffering because of consolidation by major corporate players, but the answer isn't entirely government based systems  The answer is balance.  Some free access, some high powered access, some limited access, corporate, government, hot spots, etc.

As a community, the internet thrives on this diversity.  So kick Verizon hard enough to wake them up, but not hard enough to kill them.

Technorati tags: Verizon, YouTube, Community, Comcast, Clearchannel, first amendment, Lost in Space, muniwifi

 

Blogged at A Starbucks outside of The Gateway office building in Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon, Hong Kong, Using Windows Live Writer