You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2008-03-13 10:42
Professor Tim Wu, who coined the term "net neutrality" is reportedly now advocating "law breaking" to advance the "information commons" agenda, which believes Internet infrastrructure, spectrum and content should be publicly owned and not privately owned.
That said, it is very troubling to any public civility minded person who believes in the rule of law and respect for property, that such a prominent person as Professor Wu (who coined the term net neutrality, and who proposed Caterfone open access rules for the 700 MHz auction) would advocate "law-breaking" to advance his political agenda.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-03-11 19:43
The House Judiciary hearing on "Free Speech and the Internet" this afternoon was perilously close to being a non-event.
What I found most interesting and telling at the hearing is that Michelle Combs of the Christian Coalition, who testified in support of net neutrality, was completely unable to answer simple softball questions by Ranking Member Sensenbrenner. Like a proverbial "doe in headlights" she could not answer the simplest of questions for a witness; she had to ask for help from her fellow panelists, which made it obvious that she was only a symbolic figurehead on the subject and did not understand even the most basic parts of the net neutrality issue. These were the two questions and answers paraphrased:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-03-11 13:05
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2008-03-10 18:57
Kudos to Warner Todd Huston for picking up on the outrageous free-speech double standard: "Google-YouTube Yanks Pro-Life Video, Allows Planned Parenthood Vids" that cpicked up on the Catholic News Agency's story that "American Life League video yanked by YouTube."
It is the height of irony and hypocrisy that the House Judiciary Committee is having a hearing on "Net Neutrality and free speech on the Internet" Tuesday March 11th and there hasn't been a peep of concern or outrage from all the net neutrality/freespeech proponents, the marauding pack of so-called public/Google advocates that I affectionately refer to as "Googles Poodles."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2008-03-10 11:39
Politicizing the Internet
Fabricating a Free Speech Threat to Justify Regulating the Internet and An“Information Commons” American ISPs are facilitating an unprecedented explosion of free speech.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-03-07 11:34
This is another big evidence point of a long and continued cavalier attitude to users privacy by Google (read on if you doubt this is a pattern -- these posts have most all the relevant links to all the mainstream articles on Google's cavalier attitude to Privacy):
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2008-03-06 19:08
Moveon.org, through its FreePress/SaveTheInternet puppets, loves to extol the virtues of grass roots democracy and claim to the press that there is a spontaneous groundswell for their net neutrality views in the "netroots." BALONEY! Moveon.org is a glorified top-down email list of activists, albeit a huge 3 million activist email list -- just like direct mail political organizers before them.
To support this point, I had to share this juicy dead-on insight shared at the Politics Online conference this week, by Personal Democracy Forum founder Andrew Rasiej -- per Washington Internet Daily:
Remember it was Moveon.org that attacked Facebook, the hot social networking site, when Facebook spurned Google for Microsoft. See my previous post: "Google's poodle -- Moveon.org is leading the privacy protest against Facebook -- which spurned Google..."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-03-05 19:11
Save the Internet campaign director Tim Karr in Huffington Post and columnist John Dvorak in PC Magazine are making a strategic blunder in their latest posts in responding to Andy Kessler's Wall Street Journal op ed "Internet Wrecking Ball" in bringing the net neutrality discussion back to a political philosophy discussion about whether the Internet should continue be a free market or whether Government should effectively "socialize" the Internet with net neutrality economic regulation and a implementation of an "information commons" agenda.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-03-04 13:19
Enough of Net neutrality activists' hypocritical sanctimony over freedom, free speech and democracy! It is sickening.
Net neutrality activists claim to support freedom, free speech, and democracy, but they really don't in practice.
First, let's look at the recent activist whining from FreePress/SaveTheInternet about how the FCC network management forum at Harvard was somehow hijacked by Comcast sympathetic attendees or who these activists have derisively called "seat fillers."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2008-03-03 16:21
Why the Markey Net Neutrality Bill Would Regulate the Internet
H.R.5353 would alter the FCC’s priorities to put Internet regulation ahead of competition
Where the Markey Bill explicitly would regulate the Internet: