You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2006-10-24 19:17
A must read for anyone following net neutrality or Google closely is the excellent NYT's article "We're Google. So Sue Us." by Katie Hafner. It helps lay bare the moral relativism in Google's business ethics -- where there is nothing wrong with selling other's property without their permission.
As "arguably the most powerful Internet company" and the corporate ringleader for net neutrality regulation of all things broadband, it is instructive to delve into what kind of leader the net neutrality movement has hitched its wagon to.
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 Mon, 2006-10-23 12:56
For those who truly believe in the principle of net neutrality, youÃ‚ may be troubledÃ‚ to read the New York Times article "We're Google. So sue us." The articleÃ‚ provides anÃ‚ allegation of Google effectively blocking a small competitive search-engine/website. (Searchopolist Google's share of the sarch market is 50+%Ã‚ and rising steadily at the expense of faltering #2 Yahoo and fading fast #3 Microsoft.)
It will be interesting to hear what SavetheInterent, Common Cause, ItsOurNet, andÃ‚ the many other organizations that purport to support net neutrality on principle have to say about this. Let's see if net neutrality is truly a "principle" or just a political and competitive double standard as it unfortunately appears to be.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2006-10-23 12:00
If you thought the Google founders' public fight in July in the WSJ over who got the King size bed in their custom retrofitted luxury 767 party plane was an eyebrow raiser, you have to read the Washington Post's expose on Google's culture in "Building a 'Googley' Workforce."
While the article is headlined as "Corporate culture breeds innovation" it is most interesting as a expose into how Google employees are pampered with what I call "googlentitlements."
The article starts literally with their toilets. "Every bathroom stall on the company campus holds a Japanese high tech commode with a heated seat. If a flush is not enough, a wireless button on the door activates a bidet and drying." Other generous perks reported by the Post include: "free meals three times a day, free use of an outdoor wave pool, indoor gym and large child care facility; private shuttle bus service to and from San Francisco and other residential areas." "In addition to glass cubicles, some staffers share white fabric "yurts" tentlike spaces that resemble igloos." (What's that about? Must be special.) "Outside they whiz by on company-provided motorized scooters." (Walking is so yesterday.)
"Each of its 11 campus cafes is run by an executive chef with a theme catering to the culture of people working in that building." "On a recent visit, chief executive Eric Schmidt moderated a discussion about women and war with Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda to a standing room only crowd. In the back, a Google employee with a long silver braid held his pet African Grey parrot on his finger." (Priceless.)
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 Mon, 2006-10-16 19:03
Common Cause claims in their tagline that they are "Holding Power Accountable." Well it appears as if Common Cause may haveÃ‚ a double standard problemÃ‚ of holding others to a higher and different ethical standard than they hold themselves.Ã‚
Lets reviewÃ‚ some keyÃ‚ facts. Fact One: Common CauseÃ‚ claims it is "...one of the most active, effective and respected non-profit organizations...in America." Ã‚ and it claims to be "committed to honest, openÃ‚ and accountable government..." Part of its stated mission is "to strengthen...faith in our institutions of self government...and to promote...high ethical standards for government officials..."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"?