You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-01-22 11:34
Network World has a great piece: "Open Access not as important to wireless consumers as QoS, pricing, survey finds" which exposes the Google-led tech industry's push for open access as a not-so-subtle tech-industrial policy.
This survey is important evidence exposing the tech industry's attempt to pass net neutrality/open access legislation/regulation as an thinly-guised tech industrial policy.
The tech industry has done a good job of cloaking their openness campaign as what consumers want most -- because that serves their Washington industrial policy agenda.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-01-18 18:33
The big question for investors is why?
Google's Regulatory Outlook:
Federal Trade Commission:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-01-18 10:14
While I have been critical of the AP's coverage of net neutrality issues when I believe it was warranted, to be fair I have to acknowledge and highlight AP coverage of net neutrality that's straightforward and fair.
The AP is a fine and widely respected news organization that best serves its readers and reputation when it fulfills its mission.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-01-16 11:02
Ken Auletta of the New Yorker discovered one of those rare window-into-the-soul insights about Google in his excellent in-depth expose on Google: "The Search Party -- Google squares off with its Capitol Hill Critics." I strongly recommend reading the full article but it's critical not to miss this insightful gem in Auletta's article quoted below:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-01-15 10:57
Common sense dictates that the FCC will rule in favor of the critical necessity of broadband network management and against the FreePress and Vuze petitions which claim that prioritizing p2p traffic is an unlawful violation of the FCC's network neutrality principles.
The common sense case why network management trumps net neutrality:
First, the petitions violate common sense because the petitions are based on a false predicate and presumption. The petitions assume that the FCC's policy of network neutrality principles have the legal and binding effect of formal FCC rules or law and that they trump all existing law and rules. This is preposterous. Just because the petitioners make an impassioned and PR-manipulative plea for that view -- does not mean their petition holds any water.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-01-11 16:41
An obviously frustrated Art Brodsky of Public Knowlege, trashes the Nation's leading and successful pilot effort to promote universal broadband in the country -- Connect Kentucky -- in a voluminous post that's best described as a glass-half-empty, life-is-so-terrible-because-the-world-is-not-perfect, whine-fest.
These two are so tunnel-visioned against anything private sector and so zealous for government nationalization of broadband infrastructure -- that they fail to see that there is a strong bipartisan and practical consensus around promoting universal broadband deployment to all Americans quickly and that Connect Kentucky has proven to be quite successful in achieving that bipartisan goal.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-01-11 10:57
It's becoming increasingly obvious that net neutrality proponents have not thought through the logical and practical implications of their call for mandating net neutrality.
Why does net neutrality theory not work in practice?
First, net neutrality is really backward-looking, trying to take the Internet back to the dial-up/pre broadband days when there was monopoly telecom regulation and not inter-modal broadband competition like there is today.
Second, consider net neutrality's definition by its primary proponents:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-01-08 14:51
CNET has a great article: New Hampshire voters: Net Neutrality? Huh? that exposes what we all know -- that net neutrality is a niche special interest issue that is not at all on the minds of average Americans.
It's not surprising because:
Not only has every governmental body that has reviewed this issue rejected the call for net neutrality regulation/legisation, the American people aren't aware of the issue or the term.
Kudos CNET for bringing another dose of the real world to this bogus issue.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2008-01-07 10:57
Wikipedia's late entry into the search business is reportedly motivated by concern that Google's search is not "open" and that too few players will control access to the world's information as "gatekeepers."
As the New York Times reports in "Wiki citizens taking on a new area: search," Jimmy Wales, founder of the collaborative Wikipedia, is concerned about how closed and concentrated the search business has become.
It is ironic that Google, which purports to be the high priest of openness, is considered closed by the leading open and collaborative brand and phenomenon in the world -- wikipedia.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-01-04 10:59
NBC11.com of San Jose posted an interesting reminder about Google's unique, highly suspect, and special deal with NASA, in which Google's founders get special parking privileges for their 767 "party plane" at NASA's Moffet Field, which is conveniently located just seven miles from Google's Silicon Valley headquarters.
Where is NASA's Inspector General on this?