You are here April 2008
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2008-04-24 18:38
Only Google, which never met a self-serving, double-standard that it did not embrace, could overtly enter the business of selling network capacity and bandwidth to the public like broadband providers do, and still oppose net neutrality for themselves. (See my previous post where Google's Board recently recommended that shareholders vote against applying net neutrality to Google.)
On April 7th, Google had a press announcement: "Previewing Google App engine: run your apps on Google's infrastructure" (which was also picked up in a story by the Wall Street Journal). In that Google press annoucement, Google it made clear that it was going to sell network bandwidth to developers:
- "The preview release of Google App Engine is limited to the first 10,000 developers that sign up, all of whom will be restricted to the free quota of 500MB of storage and enough CPU and network bandwidth to sustain around 5 million page views per month for a typical app. The preview phase is intended to gather feedback from developers. Eventually, developers will be able to purchase additional storage and bandwidth." [bold added]
Can any of the Google-defenders that regularly read this blog, and there are lots, please explain to me in a comment, how Google selling network capacity and network bandwidth to developers does not put Google clearly in the network or broadband business --competing directly with all the network providers, which Google has been lobbying furiously to apply network neutrality regulations to?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-04-25 11:24
Anyone who considers themselves religious should read Red State's illuminating and shocking post, which documents an anti-Christian discriminatory bias by Stanford Law Professor Larry Lessig and his extremely close ally -- Google.
WARNING: Christians will find the one-minute-fifty-second video that Mr. Lessig shows to a laughing Google audience, sacrilegious, offensive, and disturbing.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-04-25 12:27
Sometimes an analysis is so outstanding, all you can say is "Read it!"
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2008-04-28 11:04
Kudos to Timothy Lee of Cato, for his post in Techdirt: "Changing the Internet's architecture isn't so easy."
Mr. Lee challenged Professor Lessig's assertion at the Stanford FCC hearing that network owners have the power to change the Internet's architecture.
Why his insightful analysis is so devastating to Professor Lessig's core assertion underlying the need for net neutrality legislation is that it exposes some "inconvenient truths" about the reality of trying to change the Internet's architecture:
- First, Mr. Lee brilliantly points out that to control which devices got what content like Professor Lessig posits, would require instituting some type of handshake protocol that would be extremely difficult to get adopted by device manufacturers.
- Second, he points out how difficult it has been to change the Internet's architecture to IPv6, something there is a lot of consensus around to do.
- Third, he explains that these changes in architecture Lessig posits would be extremely expensive and take a long time.
I recommend you read his full post, it's brief, well-reasoned and fresh.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-04-29 10:02
I had meant to comment earlier on the FT's front page story last week on: "Google resolve crumbles on 'cookies' pledge."
The intro sentence says it all:
- "Google has failed to make any headway in dealing with one of the most controversial issues of online privacy, despite promising a year ago that it would take the lead in tackling the problem."
I can't say I am surprised -- as the old adage goes, a leopard doesn't change its spots.
- We now know more about two things concerning Google:
- That Privacy International, a leading privacy watchdog in the world, was very much on the mark in ranking Google worst in the world on Privacy in its privacy rankings and also describing Google as having an "entrenched hostility to privacy."
- Google's public committments/word (albeit non-binding) during a governmental proceeding aren't worth much.
- Google is unwisely backtracking on something very important to users and government officials.
- They thumb their noses at everyone else's privacy at their own peril...
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-04-29 14:32
The buzz is that House Subcommittee Chairman Markey is planning a hearing on net neutrality for Tuesday May 6th (probably AM) -- if they can line up their witnesses, which are still TBD.
I wouldn't be surprised if Professor Lessig is asked to testify yet again, after testifying before the Senate last week and the FCC the week before.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-04-30 12:40
Tom Sydnor of the Progress and Freedom Foundation has done a brilliant analysis of Professor Larry Lessig's book "Free Culture" in the important context of Professor Lessig's other works.
- This analysis is outstanding foundational-thinking and a must read for anyone who cares about preserving a free market Internet.
Let me highlight some gems:
First, his conclusion:
- "The preceding analysis shows that FREE CULTURE does demonize copyright owners and does urge the government to eliminate copyrights and impose "quasi-socialist utopianism." Nor does this pattern stop with copyrights. Indeed, the preceding analysis shows Lessig has already claimed that to Save the Net, the government must nationalize or heavily regulate:
• The providers of Internet-access services that own the physical network infrastructure, (e.g., net neutrality);
• The providers of commercial internet applications and services, like eBay, Amazon, and Google (e.g., CODE); and
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-04-30 13:57
Google deserves some bona fide kudos from me for blogging yesterday with some very sound and practical advice about how their users or anyone who reads their blog - could avoid getting hooked/scammed by fraudsters.
- As a consumer, I learned a couple of new tips to better protect myself from phishing fraud.
- The advice was clear, practical, informative and useful.
However, I was surprised that they did not choose to link to other sites in and out of government that could also be useful to consumers looking to protect themselves better.
I was also surprised it took a month for Google to say anything about how users could better protect themselves from new fraud scams that were exploiting weaknesses in Google's search engine protections so that Google was unwittingly offering up scam pages as part of their search results.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-04-30 17:40
CNBC's Maria Bartaromo had a rare in-depth TV interview with Google CEO Eric Schmidt.
The comments that have relevance to net neutrality were how Google's CEO, one of the biggest proponent for Net Neutrality legislation of broadband networks in the world, candidly admitted that all customers were not alike; that they have different needs; and that Google plans to charge those who want higher quality of service -- more money.
-
Bartiromo: "What about the corporate customer? I understand that there are tests going on right now. What are you hearing from that customer?"
Schmidt: "We're working with the corporate customers to do the same thing inside their networks as we do with consumers. Now, corporate customers are
not the same thing as consumer customers. Corporate customers have a much higher need for reliability, so we'll sign an agreement that guarantees a certain level of service. But then we charge for it. So that's a case where people are willing to pay for something which is free without the level of reliability. They also have other needs. They need greater security, for all the obvious reasons. And they also need better integration with all of the other services that their companies have. This is a long process. It's not a fast process. But it's very deeply valuable. And those customers we will have for 20 or 30 or 40 years as they build into our model. We like that model. It's an enterprise play. It's a business that I've been in for a long time, and one which will ultimately be very, very lucrative through Google." [Bold added]
Pages
|
