You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-12-03 12:16
An editorial by the New York Times on free speech points out that Google and other big Internet companies in fact oppose legislation that promotes free speech for those who most need it around the world.
It seems all this Google-funded effort to cloak net neutrality as a "freedom of speech" issue by Moveon.org, FreePress, Public Knowledge and other Google-supported pressure groups, is just a cynical tactic and political ploy because Google actually opposes free speech when the rubber meets the road -- like with the "Global Online Freedom Act."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-12-04 10:46
One World Trust "conducts research on practical ways to make global organisations more responsive to the people they affect, and on how the rule of law can be applied equally to all. It educates political leaders and opinion-formers about the findings of its research."
It is good to get additional third party confirmation of many of the themes I have been blogging about for over a year and a half on Google.
Weekly Standard: "Google and its Enemies" -- a great article on Google's Kleptomania in Digital BooksSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-12-05 10:58
The Weekly Standard's cover story this week is "Google and its enemies -- the much hyped project to digitize 32 million books sounds good. why are so many people taking shots at it?"
The article explains that Google is currently undertaking the most ambitious book copying project in human history, looking to scan 32 million books over ten years at an estimated cost of $800m.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-12-05 18:40
Two prominent Californians that matter recently did not side with home state Google on Google's pet policy crusade -- net neutrality. Awwwww. I feel bad for Google...
Barrons reports in "Arnold drops net neutrality" that:
Moreover, California Public Utility Commissioner Rachelle Chong wrote a great and thoughtful piece for the ACLI of the New York Law School that comprehensively debunks the call for net neutrality in: "The 31 flavors of the net neutrality debate: Beware of the Trojan Horse." Ouch. Ouch.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-12-06 12:51
I always enjoy learning about a new fresh take on an old issue.
Kudos to Dr. Daniel Ballon who wrote a great editorial on net neutrality for The Hill newspaper: "Net neutrality punishes everyone for Comcast's actions."
He recounts a great analogy about how "neutral" networks on Black Monday, the stock market crash of October 19, 1987, was made worse by a traffic jam of orders that couuld not be managed in an orderly fashion to keep the stock market functioning and open.
At its core, the policy of net neutrality, that all traffic is always treated equally no matter what is -- unreasonable, unwise, and irrational.
It's unreasonable for 1 "bandwidth hippo" out of every 10,000 users to gobble up everyone's bandwidth!Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-12-06 13:39
Another reason why the FreePress petition to block Comcast's reasonable network managment is so unreasonable is that it puts the bandwidth gluttony of a very few ahead of the needs of everyone else on the network.
The core premise and expectation behind the FreePress petition is outrageous and unreasonable.
Let's put Comcast's network management problem in perspective.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Sun, 2007-12-09 22:28
Three times a year the Internet Engineering Task Force meets to discuss and work through major Internet issues.
The paper and the article point out that users of "unattended" P2P applications use dramatically more bandwidth than users of "interactive" applications like web browsing -- and then poses the question of whether this excess usage is fair.
Van Beijnum points out that the paper's authors suggest that P2P users are using 500 times the bandwidth as average interactive users. Moreover, he points out that this assymetric bandwidth dynamic disincents an ISP from upgrading their network because the assymetry would make them even less competitive.
The fundamental point here is a question of fairness.
More guilty-until-proven-innocent regulation from Google's Poodles; new petition on texting regulationSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-12-11 10:59
The Washington Post reports that a consortium of Google's closest net neutrality allies: FreePress/Moveon.org, Public Knowledge, New America Foundation, Media Access Project, are poised to petition the FCC again, this time to mandate that wireless carriers deliver all text messages to their customers, even including text messages by wireless competitors trying to sell their competing wireless services.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-12-12 10:58
With the Google-DoubleClick merger reportedly in the final decision phase at the FTC, it will be interesting to learn what they ultimately conclude and if they have been monitoring recent market developments closely.
In my Googleopoly analysis published in July, I explained in detail why the search market had already tipped to dominance and why Yahoo and Microsoft would continue to fall behind Google.
The incoming evidence continues to prove my Googleopoly analysis was dead on.
There has been some reporting of Ask.com's new program "search eraser" which is a great new feature to help protect people's privacy that want it.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-12-12 17:13
Larry Downes produced an outstanding analysis for ZDNet today which he entitled "Save Internet Freedom -- From Regulation."
I strongly recommend it as it is one of the most cogent and persuasive pieces I have read in a long time on the subject.
He does a great service by putting the issue into much clearer context -- vis-a-vis other industries and past attempts to regulate where the government shouldn't have.