You are here

Google

Surprise! Google is concerned a Microsoft-Yahoo merger would hurt the Internet

Google's CEO Eric Schmidt must have an extremely dry sense of humor.

 

Google's growing undisclosed "conflicts of interest" are bearing their teeth

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 availability

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."

  • I certainly hope this is not the case, as it could have a ton of negative unintended consequences which I will outline below.

How could changing the baseline minimum definition of what is broadband turn out to be anti-competition and undermine the universal availability of broadband?

Google-YouTube's "open" hypocrisy in YouTube's new expanded API

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.)

It is telling that Google-YouTube's API (Application Programming Interface) terms of service BLOCKS any commercial competitor seeking to generate advertising from using the API.

  • This is an interesting discriminatory position for Google-YouTube which supposedly subscribes to the information commons philosophy of the Open Internet and which also happens to have the dominant share of video streaming market per ComScore (Google-YouTube has seven times the viewer share as any other video-streaming provider.)

Bottom line: What's good for Google is not good for the Gander.

  • Google believes it is "special,"  and that one set of rules should apply to Google and its wholly-owned companies like YouTube, and another set of much more onerous rules should apply to all of their potential competitors.   

Professor Wu, Father of Net Neutrality, calling for "law breaking" to advance net neutrality?

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.  

  • Communications Daily quoted Professor Wu on March 11, 2008:
    • "To move things along, unlicensed users should start occupying unused spectrum for wireless broadband, Wu said: "You gotta start somewhere, and it always starts with law-breaking.""
  • My experience is that Comm Daily is careful to accurately quote people and if Professor Wu did not to clarify his remarks, we can assume them to be accurate. I also have not seen a clarification of this after two more publications. 
  • I would also like to extend the courtesy to Professor Wu to be able to qualify his remarks that they were meant to be flippant, or a joke, or that he really didn't mean to call to publicly encourage people to break the law.
    • He could resolve this issue with a simple blog post.  

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.

House Judiciary Free Speech hearing a yawner; Christian Coalition couldn't answer simple questions

The House Judiciary hearing on "Free Speech and the Internet" this afternoon was perilously close to being a non-event.

  • While Net neutrality activists will claim and spin victory and momentum in getting a congressional hearing on the subject, anyone who listened to the hearing would have been surprised by how little actual support net neutrality got out of this hearing

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:  

Where's the outrage over Google-YouTube's free speech double standard?

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."

  • The hypocritical double standard here is doubled:
    • Google censors pro-life videos, but not pro-choice videos containing some of the exact same material, with no explanation or justification of this blatant content discrimination based on political views; and
    • Google's advocacy groups make a scene whenever an ISP is alleged to have violated free speech but they go underground and hide when their primary corporate patron and advocacy ally Google is alleged to have violated free speech.  
      • Two. Two. Two hypocrisies for the price of one!

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." 

Politicizing the Internet -- why net neutrality is not about free speech

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.

Google: the Un-Privacy Company -- More Google-what's-yours-is-ours-to-give-away

Garret Rogers of Googling Google on ZDnet has an illuminating post: "Google gives developers access to your contacts."

  • While Google extols the benefits of its "open" system it is irresponsibly silent on how it allows third parties "open access" to one of users most intimate and private treasures of information -- ones private contacts.

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):

Pages

Q&A One Pager Debunking Net Neutrality Myths