You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-03-25 11:11
Google's CEO Eric Schmidt must have an extremely dry sense of humor.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2008-03-24 13:52
New evidence exposes that Google has much more serious financial conflicts of interest and is much less of an "honest broker" of online advertising than most appreciate.
How redefining broadband's lowest speed could be anti-competition & undermine universal broadband availabilitySubmitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-03-14 18:41
I was surprised and concerned to read in Comm Daily today that the FCC's broadband data collection rulemaking "is expected to swap the FCC minimum speed for broadband -- 200 kbps -- for a tiered approach. The lowest tier would set 768 kbps as the minimum speed, an FCC source said."
How could changing the baseline minimum definition of what is broadband turn out to be anti-competition and undermine the universal availability of broadband?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-03-14 16:55
Kudos to CNET's article "YouTube's expanded API not for everybody" which exposes Google's hypocrisy in pushing for everyone else BUT Google-YouTube to have open and non-discriminatory access to their networks. (Remember: Google is leading the Open Internet Coalition to mandate net neutrality for all broadband providers; Google is leading the wireless open access push for more open wireless APIs; and Google asked the court to extend Microsoft's decree and keep their API's open.)
Bottom line: What's good for Google is not good for the Gander.
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):