You are here

Congress

A new "online workers union" to promote net neutrality?

Thank you Tech Daily for flagging a silly blog by MyDD calling for an organizing an "online workers union... to look out for the political interests of online workers. These interests include net neutrality, intellectual property law like DMCA..."

You can see me shaking my head in disbelief now... an online workers union for net neutrality...

Let me highlight just a few of the silly aspects of this idea.

First, organizing bloggers into a union to promote net neutrality?

  • Duh! It already exists! 
  • The "online workers union" is called Moveon.org and it already has 3 million members, all they have to do is change from political donations and require mandatory union dues.  
  • The MoveOn/FreePress folks already operate as de facto union bosses of the net neutrality movement.
  • And by the way doesn't MyDD know that the Consumers "Union" already supports net neutrality regulation?

Second, social media technology already allows onliners to organize around what ever idea they want whenever they want. Its a free country and a free and open Internet. Why not create: 

  • UnionBosster?
  • MyUnionSpace?
  • UnionFace?
  • Goonion?
  • LaeBayr? 
  • AmUnionZon?
  • AskYourUnionRep.com?
  • Wikidarity? 
  • eUnionDues?
  • SaveUsFromIndividualism?
  • OrganizeAgainstYourself?
  • Socialized Internet?
    • Surely MyDD could "move on" one of these many "online workers union" ideas.

Third, MyDD's idea for organizing eBay sellers is sort of bizarre.

Google's perverse version of the "Golden Rule"

Google's naiveté and cluelessness on antitrust matters continues to amaze me. While Google has ramped up its Washington lobbying presence a ton of late, it is amusing that the company-at-large still does not have a lick of political savvy or common sense.

It is almost as if Google operates having an out-of-body experience, where their leaders think they can float sanctimoniously above the playing field and see everything perfectly, but no one can see them or what they are doing.

What do I mean? Let me put Google's antitrust and political behavior into context.

  • Google is ferociously going after Microsoft on antitrust matters. After they recently won a huge concession from Microsoft to make Google's desktop search work better and faster -- a concession not required by the DOJ-supervised committee that oversees Microsoft's competitive behavior -- Google is now asking for Microsoft's antitrust decree not to expire.
  • This is classic, hardball, take-no-prisoners behavior that sometimes yields short-term results, but always invites long-term disaster.
  • In effect, Google is taunting the antitrust-caged Microsoft tiger, imagining that they are untouchable, invincible and legally superior.

It is amazing to me that Google appears to be unaware and clueless that they have voluntarily walked into their own “antitrust cage" of the FTC review process for approving two of their deals, DoubleClick and FeedBurner.

More eBay Doublespeak on net neutrality

While I was very glad to hear that eBay continues to support extending the Internet Tax Moratorium, which expires in November, I found eBay's Brian Bieron's rationale for it very hypocritical given their stance on net neutrality.

National Journal's Tech Daily yesterday  reported that:

  • eBay's "Bieron said he thinks the Internet has been working well and it would be a mistake to change any of the underpinnings to how it currently operates."

Hello eBay?

  • If "the Internet has been working well" why propose to hyper-regulate it with new net neutrality legislation for the first time?
  • If "it would be a mistake to change any of the underpinnings to how it currently operates", why don't you think new net neutrality regulation would not change the underpinnings of how the Internet operates -- from free market to government "managed competition"?
    • I can anticipate your standard response, which is still bogus -- that the Internet has always been neutral and new legislation would just maintain the status quo.

Bottomline:  Net neutrality proponents cannot win on the merits and the facts of the issue, so they must systematically fabricate a problem, and misrepresent the context of the legislation as status quo.

How net filtering is ok for misdemeanors, but not for felonies?

I have been watching with some amusement all of the SaveTheInternet-launched blogilantes ranting about the prospect of Internet backbone networks like AT&T or others, becoming a filtering technology solution to Hollywood's problem of rampant content piracy on the Internet.

Why am I amused?

  • Because net neutrality proponents are so predictably knee jerk in their reaction to anything that they see as a threat to their datatopian ideal of a net free of any broadband competition, differentiation or diversity of choice.
  • Net neutrality proponents have such a bad case of "myneutralopia" that they can't see the proverbial forest for the trees.
    • Over the last year, net neutrality proponents have had to make an increasing number of big concessions about what "bit discrimination" is acceptable in order to remain credible on Capitol Hill.
    • They have had to concede and support network management "discrimination" of bits:
      • To filter out viruses, filtering which is essential to protect the Internet and users from Net blackouts or shutdowns;
      • To filter out illegal spam, so the Internet and email remains unclogged and useful; and
      • To allow for law enforcement under CALEA, the ability to surveil criminal and terrorist activity on the Internet.
    • If all that network managment "discrimination of bits" is OK,
      • Then why isn't it OK for these same network managers to filter traffic for pirated content, i.e. trafficking in stolen goods?
    • In other words, if it is OK to filter the Internet for the misdemeanors and felonies of spreading viruses and spam, and it is longstanding law for the Goverment to be able to surveil the Internet to detect criminal behavior, how is new network filtering for illegal pirated content any different or any less necessary?

Once again, the net neutrality crowd's kneejerk reaction is to side with lawbreakers rather than with every day citizens and users of the Internet who are all ultimately harmed by allowing Internet-enabled crimes to go undetected and unnpunished.

GREAT article on privacy: "Is Google too big" PC World

Anyone concerned about their privacy should read the GREAT article in PC World on Google and privacy, and in particular should look at the call out box to see the risk about all that Google knows about you.  

  • The article does a great job of explaining all the ways that others and the government could easily access tons of private information on you via Google's huge cache of private information on you.
  • Google is quickly becoming the enabler of George Orwell's feared "Big Brother" in "1984."

Let's see if the mainstream press picks up on this obvious and interesting populist story... it has legs.

The privacy dark side of Google's antitrust win over Microsoft

 

Anyone interested in privacy issues, should be on a heightened sense of alert, because Google has just won a big victory in getting its "pryware" deeper into the average American's private life.

The media focused only on the antitrust angle in covering Google's antitrust complaint against Microsoft, for not making it easy enough in its new Vista operating system for users to select Google as its search engine of computers' INTERNAL hard drive.

Fear (NOT paranoia) "about Google's growing power" -- Reuters

Reuters did a decent article on Google and growing privacy concerns about Google practices.

  • My beef is with the editor's choice of words in the title.
  • Either the editor does not know the real definition of "paranoia" or the editor was trying to cut the knees out from under the reporter's story and soften the article.
    • I've included the definitions of "paranoia" and "fear" from www.dictionary.com at the bottom of this post.

"Paranoia" is either a mental disorder or a baseless suspicion.

  • I don't think Reuters meant to imply that an American is mentally ill if he/she fears that their privacy is being invaded by Google recording and storing all of their searches and click paths, electronically reading all their g-mails, and surveilling many people's lives through Street View cameras.
    • As you remember, anybody that stood up to the proverbial "Big Brother" in George Orwell's 1984, was also accused of being ill.

Let's keep an eye on Google's spinmeisters to see if this was just one editor who chose the wrong word, or if it is part of Google's talking points to defend itself against privacy concerns.

  • My suspicion, is that the word came from Google.
    • Oops! Does that candor make me paranoid?

 

par·a·noi·a –noun

Why protect the Webopolies with net neutrality corporate welfare?

The New York Times reported a very telling statistic today on one of the prominent Webopolies in the Open Internet Coalition -- eBay.

95% market share! If that's not a Webopoly, what is?

Despite puffery over 700 MHz "3rd pipe" -- the market is solving it

You gotta love how the free market works when left alone by the Government!

Just as Frontline and others are demanding that the government has to intervene in the 700 MHz auction to "create" a third broadband pipe, the free market finds another way to solve these market problems without the Government.

One of the most significant developments in the spectrum world today was not the hot air at the Senate Commerce Committee hearing, but what happened in the free market -- DirecTV and Echostar signing agreements with Clearwire to sell their WiMax broadband service.

WSJ lead article highlights tradeoff of competition vs regulation

The cover story in the Wall Street Journal today "A fight over what you  can do with your cellphone; Handset makers push free features for which carriers pay for" was obviously perfectly-timed and placed by open access/net neutrality proponents trying to influence the Senate Commerce Committee hearing today on the FCC's 700 MHz auction.

  • The article offers a list of complaints for net neutrality supportive Senators to browbeat competitive wireless carriers with.

What the article ignores is the broader and essential context of this issue and debate.

Pages

Q&A One Pager Debunking Net Neutrality Myths