The only thing proponents of Net neutrality regulation and opponents of online piracy legislation appear to have in common is the boy-crying-wolf "censorship" rhetoric of FreePress' Save The Internet activists.

See my Forbes Tech Capitalist post here, "SOPA Opponents' Bogus Net Neutrality Comparisons."

Professor Susan Crawford's attempt to manufacture a new net neutrality bogeyman, "The Looming Cable Monopoly," fails to persuade.

See my Forbes Tech Capitalist post which deconstructs and debunks Professor Crawford's unsupported theory.

In compiling and ranking the top threats facing Google, I was amazed at the breadth, depth, diversity and seriousness of the threats and liabilities facing Google.

Please see my Forbes Tech Capitalist post here to learn the ranking of what threats to Google are most serious and why.

The Senate's 52-46 rejection of the Resolution of Disapproval of the FCC's net neutrality regulations (after the House voted differently 240-179 to disapprove last spring), is a classic pyrrhic victory for net neutrality proponents in two big ways.

First, the issue put the FCC on the political radar screen of every Member of Congress, and not in a good way.

For several hours the Senate debated and then officially voted on whether the Constitutionally-authorized Congress should be the entity to effectively establish new Internet law, or whether unelected FCC commissioners with no direct statutory authority from Congress should be able to effectively establish new Internet law and effectively claim boundless unchecked regulatory power whenever they see fit.

Supporters of the FCC were put in the very awkward position of politically having to defend a constitutional/legal position that:

• Is strongly contrary to the Senate's institutional interests; and
• Involves preemptive regulation of a major swath of the economy without credible evidence of any existing problem -- all in the midst of a weak economy badly struggling to create jobs.

Google opposes the Senate PROTECT IP Act and the House SOPA bill because these anti-piracy bills expose Google's substantial piracy liability.

See my Forbes Tech Capitalist post here on "Google's Piracy Liability."

As the Senate prepares to vote on the fate of the FCC's net neutrality regulations this week, it's instructive to look more closely at the politics of regulating the Internet.

Read my Forbes Tech Capitalist post here.

Pending anti-piracy legislation (Senate: PROTECT IP, House: SOPA) is very likely to become law in 2012.

See my Forbes Tech Capitalist post here to learn why, and why it is important.

For those interested in powerful evidence that many parts of Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt's Senate antitrust testimony September 21st under oath were apparently false, deceptive or misleading, please don't miss Foundem's 29 minute annotated fact-checking video of Mr. Schmidt's testimony.

• Foundem, a British product search competitor that has filed an antitrust suit against Google in the EU, has both the expertise and detailed-knowledge-base to fact-check and challenge Google's apparently extensive prevarication before the Senate.
• Using Mr. Schmidt's own responses to questions under oath, Foundem repeatedly provides evidence that Google apparently provided false, deceptive or misleading answers to questions about potential illegal anti-competitive behavior by Google.
• The video is must viewing for investigators of Google's antitrust alleged violations at the EU, the FTC, the DOJ, Korea, the Attorneys General of at least Texas, California, and New York; as well as the members and staff of the Senate and House Antitrust subcommittees responsible for overseeing the enforcement of antitrust laws.

In a nutshell, the video shows how Mr. Schmidt's responses to several questions about whether Google biases its search results for Google's benefit apparently are untrue or deceptive.

It also provides strong evidence supporting the conclusions of Subcommittee Ranking Member, Senator Mike Lee that:

How could Google fail to meet the security needs of the City of Los Angeles in its trophy government cloud contract?

Learn why in my Forbes Tech Capitalist post here, entitled "Google Too Fast and Loose for LAPD."

The New York Times editorial "How to Fix the Wireless Market," is embarrassingly uninformed and totally ignores massive obvious evidence of vibrant American wireless competition.

The NYT's conclusion, that more wireless regulation is needed because of "insufficient competition," results from cherry picking a few isolated facts that superficially support their case, while totally ignoring the overwhelming relevant evidence to the contrary.

The NYT completely ignores widely-available evidence of vibrant wireless competition and substitution: