The news that swept the new media yesterday was a New York Times report that Google and Verizon were finalizing an agreement that amounts to a sort of unholy pact laying the groundwork to fully corporatize and control the internet. A pact that would signal an end to Google’s critical support for the concept of “net neutrality,” putting the freedom of the internet at risk.

For those who don’t know, “net neutrality” refers to the principle of keeping all web traffic equal across the internet. If the internet is a network of highways where information is going back and forth, everybody has to use the same off and on ramps and is subject to the same traffic and road conditions as everybody else. Big corporate interests are not given VIP lanes while everybody else crowds together in a traffic jam. Edgy political speech is not directed to meandering Class IV roads set aside for it. The big information corporations want to change that and reserve for themselves the ability to prioritize internet traffic. This could lead to a lot of obvious mischief, have the effect of stifling not just speech but innovation, and could even lead to Internet Service Providers charging subscribers based on popular website packages much the way cable companies do with television channels. As former GMD front pager David “Kagro X” Waldman wrote:

If you like the Internet the way it is, then you’re for net neutrality. If you’d rather pay more money for less service, and have a giant company tell you what you are and aren’t allowed to see, then you’re against net neutrality.

As you’d expect, the news has caused a flurry of activity. First a twittered denial from Google, which – at second glance – looks more like a carefully parsed non-denial. Then the Wall Street Journal came out with its own report backing up the NYT coverage. Bloomberg, the Washington Post and Politico followed. Finally (and most significantly), the FCC has decided to open up what had been closed-door, backroom discussions on the matter “to seek broad input on this vital issue.” The FCC has the authority to set the rules on this matter, as does Congress, but neither have done so – and it’s clearly only a matter of time before corporations succeed in filling that vacuum of authority themselves with their own self-interest,

Net neutrality on its own terms is a big concern, obviously. So, too, is the very idea of two large corporations meeting in private to determine how a major commercial and cultural infrastructure resource (largely created through tax incentives and direct public funds) is to be carved up to their benefit. In Vermont, though, we’re in the waning days of a gubernatorial primary in which one of the candidates is an executive at one of the companies in question.  

Matt Dunne has worked at Google for years, and its a major selling point of his campaign. So if his employer (Dunne is on leave) is heading to the dark side on this issue, what says Dunne?

In an email reply to the question, Dunne indicated:

“I am absolutely committed to net neutrality regardless of the stance of any corporation. A governor can have an impact on the debate, particularly by advocated for “open pipe” deployment of broadband.”

Not only a reassuring answer to receive, but a useful reminder to all politicians that, sometimes, a sticky situation can be avoided simply by clearly and directly refusing to let it be a sticky situation.

I checked in with the other campaigns as well. Here were their responses:

Bartlett: “The beauty of the Internet is that it is an almost-level playing field. Net neutrality is important to Vermont businesses so they aren’t dwarfed by large companies who can afford to pay for faster service. I don’t even want to think about the impact on access to news and information. The Internet is regulated on the federal level. Our federal delegation supports net neutrality and I will use my influence as governor to support their efforts.”

Racine: “I oppose this move by Google and Verizon to assert greater control over the internet in a way that will only lead to higher costs for consumers, especially those of us in rural areas. Net neutrality is especially important for Vermont and other rural areas so that internet content is not further limited. We already have a challenge in providing service for Vermonters. I will work with other governors to fight for true net neutrality and to oppose allowing Google and Verizon and other corporations gaining greater control of the internet.”

Shumlin: “Net neutrality is an important notion.  The state and a state’s governor can play a role in this debate as it is an important concept to uphold in the states’ communications policy.  The state has a fairly expansive role over telecommunications.  The Public Service Board and the Vermont Telecommunications Authority should make net neutrality a prerequisite of any approved funding.”

Markowitz Campaign Manager Paul Tencher: “Deb stands behind the tradition of net neutrality and would work with our federal delegation to ensure continued protection of this important issue of fairness.”

Sounds good to me.