You are here Google
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-03-14 10:18
I read with interest and amusement Drew Clark's piece on GigaOM about "Is Google changing its position on Net neutrality?".
Drew Clark's piece in GigaOM is one of the better reports I've seen outlining the increasing disarray of the ItsOurNet coalition, the front group for online giants promoting net neutrality legislation.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-03-14 09:54
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-03-13 12:14
The WSJ is reporting that Viacom has sued Google for $1b in damages for stealing its copyrighted content.
-
"YouTube is a significant, for-profit organization that has built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google," Viacom said in a press release. "Their business model, which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-03-13 10:51
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-03-12 16:28
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-03-12 12:02
I wanted to connect the dots for folks of the national security relevance and implications of a net neutrality policy.
So what's the national security connection to NN?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Sun, 2007-03-11 17:34
Net neutrality proponents have been rebuffed ayet gain in trying to push NN at the state level.
-
In Maryland, House Bill 1069, which would have imposed NN in Maryland, was withdrawn Friday for lack of support.
-
As you may remember, a similar attempt to impose NN in Michigan in recent months also failed.
NN state activists are now off to a predictable 0-2 start in trying to get the states to adopt what every entity at the Federal level has already rejected.
-
To recap the scoring, NN is also 0-6 at the Federal level: FCC, Bush Administration, Supreme Court, full House, Senate Commerce Committee, and FTC.
Why is the concept of Net Neutrality or net regulation 0-8 in official government forums of all types: legislative -- Federal and State, judicial and executive?
-
The issue has no merit. It is basically a collection of unsubstantiated allegations with near zero evidence or supporting analysis to justify the allegations.
-
It would reverse very successful existing policy promoting competition and keeping the Internet free of regulation for no good reason.
When responsible and accountable officials hear both sides of this debate in a fair and open forum -- with evidence and analysis of the merits, costs and benefits -- the right answer is consistently obvious -- if it isn't broke don't fix it!
This is the basic reason I organized NetCompetition.org last April as an eforum to encourage a free and open debate on the merits of the NN legislation.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-03-09 09:53
Today's lead WSJ article "As Power shifts, AT&T may alter Yahoo pact" is a must read.
- The wonderful lesson of this article is that the only constant in life is change.
- The article is replete with real life examples with how deals and visions of the future -- made sense at one time -- but "changed" or evolved with the evolution of the Internet, innovation and changing corporate fortunes.
- The policy lesson from this illuminating article is that it spotlights the complete folly of trying to pass a net neutrality law which would freeze the current architecture and competitive state of play -- permanently.
- Not only is it nonsensical to get in the way of the Internet's constant and dynamic evolution, but it exposes the human folly of being certain about what the future holds.
- This insightful article shows how some of the best minds can't anticpate all of the unexpected twists and turns the Internet economy can and does take.
The article also explains the AT&T-Yahoo pact from 2001 which gave Yahoo the "exclusive" to be SBC/AT&T's default webpage and search engine.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-03-08 21:41
I continue to be amazed with how many people have fallen for the manipulative NN sloganeering of "Internet Freedom" and just aren't thinking.
I fully grasp the surface branding appeal of "Internet freedom" because everyone has it now and cherishes it.
What I just don't get is the nonsensical logic behind the pro net neutrality case that we somehow get more freedom by restricting freedom.
Where freedom comes from in our country is our constitution, which ensures the ultimate power is with the people and which also tremendously limits the power of Government in a very wide variety of ways. Our Founding Fathers were truly brilliant.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-03-08 16:53
Pages
|