Connecting more dots in the Googlegate cover-up

Why does Google continue to cover-up its real political and financial relationship with

  • Why won't Google be "open" about this?
  • What is the Google "black box" hiding?

Lets connect-some-dots chronologically of this close political and finanical relationship.

Yet another official rejection of net neutrality -- by US Court of Appeals

It's important to highlight yet another official/legal repudiation of the net neutrality movement's common carrier regulation agenda.

  • As reported by Comm Daily yesterday, but largely ignored by the mainstream press, the U.S. Appeals Court 3rd circuit, upheld the FCC's decision to classify DSL as a competitive "information service" and not a common carrier telecom service potentially subject to net neutrality regulations.

Why is this important?

  • It was this very FCC decision made in August 2005 that net neutrality supporters made their rallying cry for new net neutrality legislation!
  • This August 2005 FCC decision implemented the Supreme Court's earlier "Brand X" decision, which affirmed that cable modems were appropriately classified by the FCC as an un-regulated competitive "information service."
  • In addition to applying the "Brand X" cable modem info services classification on DSL, the FCC has also applied it consistently to other functionally-equivalent broadband technologies: wireless broadband service and Broadband over power line service.

The significance of this appeals court affirmation of the legitimacy of the FCC's highly-market-successful broadband deregulation policy is that the legal precedents for maintaining broadband as an unregulated competitive service are piling up and becoming extremely difficult to reverse in the future.

Googlegate? and Google appear to be to back-pedaling from their conspiracy of last week to block the political free speech of a U.S. Senator up for reelection.'s Google coverup?

    Art Brodsky's of Public Knowledge recently posted his long defense of and Google for their blocking the free speech of U.S. Senator Susan Collins.

    • Brodsky claims that has called off its trademark protection dogs and is now allowing Google to place ads now that they blocked last week at's urging.
      • How skulkingly magnanimous of them!

    What appears to be missing from this sleight-of-hand mea culpa, is Google/ or both of them:

    • admitting they made an egregious mistake in conspiring to block the free speech of a U.S. Senate candidate;
    • taking full responsibility for the Internet free speech censorship;
    • pledging it won't happen again; and
    • explaining that they have taken sufficient actions (policy changes) so it won't reoccur.

    I doubt a congressional panel, the press or the blogosphere will drop this issue just because one of Google's Poodles organizations, Public Knowledge, posted a preemptive defense on the Huffington Post to try and frame this issue before their "progressive" base got a whif of their week-old anti-free speech droppings.

    Mr. Brodsky also claims that Google and have never limited free speech before.

    Sen. Clinton's innovation agenda encouragingly excludes net neutrality

    While I doubt I'll ever be accused of being a supporter of Senator Hillary Clinton, I must commend her and her campaign for sound political judgement when it's due.

    Let's see how principled Google's Open Internet Coalition is on protecting free speech

    How timely for the Google-backed Open Internet Coalition to be writing Congress asking for Congressional hearings on allegations of censorship of free speech on the Internet.

    Google's poodles situational ethics when it comes to Google blocking free speech

    The hypocrisy and situational ethics of "Google's Poodles", SaveTheInternet and FreePress is obvious for everyone to see.

    SaveTheInternet on the top of its homepage has a call to "Take Action: Protect Free Speech Everywhere"! 

    • "Stop the gatekeepers" "It's time Congress demanded free speech over all 21st century communications – on the Internet, on cell phones, on the streets, everywhere."
      • What part of "everywhere" does not include the most dominant gatekeeper on the Internet, Google, and does not include the free speech of a sitting U.S. Senator Susan Collins who is trying to respond to being targeted for election defeat by a political organization --
        • Are we to interpret that SaveTheInternet only believes free speech is warranted for people who agree with SaveTheInternet's chief patron -- That's not very "neutral."
        • Or are we to interpret that because SaveTheInternet believes that Google's "don't be evil" "heart" is in the right place, they can do no wrong?
        • Like Google, do you not do what you say?

    FreePress, runs the same "Stop the gatekeepers!" call at the top of their page in a rolling ad.

    Google bans Senator Collin's ads -- Google's "Free Speech" double standard

    Robert Cox, the Founder and President of the Media Bloggers Association, a non-partisan professional standards group, reports that Google has blocked the running of U.S. Senator Susan Collins' ads on Google.

    •  "Internet giant Google has banned advertisements critical of, the far-left advocacy group that caused a national uproar last month when it received preferential treatment from The New York Times for its “General Betray Us” message."
    • "The ads banned by Google were placed by a firm working for Republican Sen. Susan Collins’ re-election campaign. Collins is seeking her third term."

      Google has a particularly tortured concept of "free speech" if it is willing to editorially ban Republican speech that opposes its most important and high-profile lobbying ally in the net neutrality fight.

    Rising consumer complaints against Google -- More evidence Google does not do what they say

    Listening to Google's General Counsel testify at the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on the Google-DoubleClick merger  which I also testified at, one would think everyone loves Google and all was just "teddie bears and rainbows" for consumers in Googleland.

    Unsolicited advice for Frontline Wireless' new Open Access Advisory council

    Reed Hundt's Frontline Wireless,  is reportedly forming a high-profile "Open Access Advisory Council" for the 700 MHz spectrum auction, which includes "net neutrality" term-coiner and celebrity Columbia Law Professor Tim Wu.

    I have two pieces of unsolicited advice for Frontline's new advisory council."


    Q&A One Pager Debunking Net Neutrality Myths