You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2006-10-27 16:36
Robert Scoble of Naked Coversations fame (great book Robert! Thank you.) posted a very interesting 7 minute video of Google's Lobby on his widely readÃ‚ Scobleizer Blog:
After initial fascination like Scoble with reading realÃ‚ random searches as they were occurring, upon reflection I found it very troubling.Ã‚ Why itsÃ‚ interestingÃ‚ is exactly why its troubling.Ã‚ It's interesting because none of us in the public domain ever get to see what anyone else is searching for at a specific point in time, because that is potentially very personal/private search information -- which I thought until now --Ã‚ was supposed toÃ‚ be guardedÃ‚ asÃ‚ private information by Google.Ã‚
What's troubling is that if GoogleÃ‚ handles American's private information so cavalierly as to use itÃ‚ for perfomance art in public, what other private information are treating cavalierlyÃ‚ that we don't know about?Ã‚
Is anyone elseÃ‚ troubled that Google doesn't see anything wrong withÃ‚ "search peeping"Ã‚ or a public "search peep show?" What do privacy advocates think?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2006-10-26 18:34
What's going on at ItsOurNet?Ã‚
Google, eBay, Amazon, Yahoo are still listed, what happened to Microsoft which was one of the five big companies bankrolling the effort?
Could the organization be getting a little too radical, regulatory, government intrusive, or anti-market-forcesÃ‚ for their taste?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2006-10-26 10:32
Net neutrality proponents love to wax eloquentlyÃ‚ aboutÃ‚ respecting the "principles of democracy and freedom' -- for others that is -- but not themselves, becuase that would interfere with accomplishing their agenda.Ã‚ Apparently, for many net neutrality proponents, the "ends justify the means."Ã‚ Ã‚ Ã‚
The Itsournet coalition isÃ‚ effectively "mugging" the AT&T-Bell South merger over net neutrality. TheyÃ‚ are pressuring the Democratic Commissioners to hold up the merger which has already been approved by the DOJ and all the states, over a "fifth net neutralityÃ‚ principle."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2006-10-26 09:18
Please read Nick Carr's brilliant post on Lessig's "Web 2.0lier than thou". It gets to the heart of what Stanford Professor Lawrence Lessig, one of the leading net neutrality functionaries, is really all about: "digital communalism." I couldn't agree more with Nick on this point! I have long called net neutrality a "Socialized Interent" so I think the term digital communalism is right on point.Ã‚ Lessig clearly trusts the state more than he trusts people.
Here's a great snippet from Nick's post that capture's the problem with Lessig's worldview:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2006-10-23 13:26
Legislation would favour socialism over capitalism
Ã‚ By Scott Cleland
Published: October 23 2006 03:00 | Last updated: October 23 2006 03:00
From Mr Scott Cleland.
Sir, I have to challenge Lawrence Lessig's gross misrepresentation of net neutrality legislation in his article "Congress must keep broadband competition alive" (October 19).
Prof Lessig asserts that net neutrality legislation is "not a massive programme of regulation. Itis instead a very thin rule for broadband providers that forbids business models that favour scarcity over abundance".
First, the most draconian form of regulation possible is a ban. Second, Prof Lessig's vision of net neutrality is a "socialised internet" that would effectively outlaw capitalism for broadband in America. A fundamental incentive of capitalism is competitive differentiation and innovation which creates "scarcity" but also stimulates demand and growth. Under Prof Lessig's theory and logic, patents and trademarks should be outlawed because they "favour scarcity over abundance". That is their purpose, in order to encourage innovation, commerce and economic growth.
In sum, Prof Lessig's "very best network neutrality legislation" favours socialism over capitalism.
Scott Cleland,Chairman, NetCompetition.org(an e-forum on net neutrality funded by broadband companies),
McLean, VA 22102, US
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2006-10-20 17:11
After seeing how unabashedly one-sided and biasedÃ‚ the preview of Moyer's show was on Net Neutrality whichÃ‚ IÃ‚ described in my Blog last weekÃ‚ -- I can't say I wasÃ‚ surprised that the actual show proved to be equally unabashedly one-sided and biased.Ã‚ Ã‚
So what's the objective basis of my assessment of bias?
This was not journalism, but basically a paid advertisement that was not fully disclosed.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2006-10-19 15:18
Stanford Law Professor Lessig's proposed "thin rule" on net neutrality is really "thin gruel."
I hope Professor Lawrence Lessing doesn't let his students get away with playing as fast and loose with the facts as the professorÃ‚ did inÃ‚ his Financial Times editorial: "Congress must keep broadband competition alive." Ã‚ It also seems as if Professor Lessig could benefit from a brush-up tutorial from one of his colleagues on how toÃ‚ accurately evaluateÃ‚ the competitiveness of markets.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2006-10-18 18:13
Its highly instructive to see the bright line where consensus behind net neutrality breaks down and why.
There is very strong consensus behind the non-binding net neutrality principles enuciated in the August 5, 2005 FCC Policy Statement.Ã‚ In short,Ã‚ the commission unanimously agreed that the FCC has theÃ‚ jurisdiction necessary to ensure that "IP-enabled services are operated in a neutral manner."Ã‚
Specifically, the Commission adopted the following four principles:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2006-10-17 13:46
Net neutrality proponents have embraced the buzzword "freedom,"Ã‚ I guess its because they think it is more appealing and "politically correct"Ã‚ thanÃ‚ representingÃ‚ net neutrality for what it truly is about -- mandated egalitarianismÃ‚ andÃ‚ forced equality.
I find the useÃ‚ of theÃ‚ word freedomÃ‚ in this contextÃ‚ cynical andÃ‚ highly deceptive. "Net neutrality freedom" is really an oxymoron! Net neutrality is all about permanently and preemptively taking away the freedoms of people and companies that have not done anything wrong, based on feared outcomes and harmsÃ‚ that cannot be substantiated.Ã‚
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2006-10-13 10:35
By far the most interesting and important thing Google CEO Schmidt said was: "We see ourselves as a technology provider and a distribution network."
Whoa! Did anyone else catch the huge significance of Google's new self-description of its identity as a "distribution NETWORK?" This is very new just since the purchase of Youtube. To drive home this point I have copied belowÃ‚ Google's quick profile from its websiteÃ‚ of whatÃ‚ Google saysÃ‚ Google is -- and there is no mention of being a "distribution NETWORK."Ã‚ To date, Google has representedÃ‚ itself as the "world's best search engine," a company focused on "search services" and its mission as "organizing the world's information and making it universally accessible and useful."Ã‚
Why I find this so interesting is what type of "distribution NETWORK" does Google see itself becoming? And as a new "distributionÃ‚ NETWORK" with 50+% share and rising of the search business, will Google agree to the same "NETWORKÃ‚ neutrality" principles that they believe all otherÃ‚ NETWORKsÃ‚ should abide by?
Does Google still truly believe in NETWORK neutrality now that they have transformed themselves intoÃ‚ a self-described "distribution NETWORK" company?
Isn't what's "good for the google good for the gander"?