You are here

YouTube

Comcast exec spotlights Google's hypocrisy on net neutrality

MultiChannel News has a great write up of a tough speech on net neutrality by David Cohen, Executive Vice President of Comcast.

  • “When you cut through the rhetoric, what they [Google, Yahoo] want from the federal government is new regulations that would guarantee them below cost-access to the broadband networks that carry most of the Internet content in this country,â€? Cohen said in a speech to the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia.

Kudos to Mr. Cohen for taking the gloves off and saying what needs to be said.

We just posted one of our net neutrality flash videos on Youtube

As we recently modified and updated the Netcompetition website to make it even easier to use and work with, we decided to take the little ant fable flash on net neutrality we produced, and that has been exclusively on our site for awhile, and post it to YouTube in order to broaden the audience.

Enjoy!

It's only a 1 minute 40 second flash.

see the new updated scare ticker on net neutrality

There is a new updated net neutrality scareticker link to check out.

The bottom line here is that net neutrality is all about unsubstantiated allegations of problems.

  • If net neutrality was in fact a real problem, wouldn't we have seen at least some evidence somewhere in the U.S. after 4 years and 2 months and counting?
  • The FCC and the FTC have also both said they are vigilantly watching for any potential problems, but have not heard of any.
  • What's there to be afraid of?

John Edwards on Net Neutrality -- Lip synching the Moveon.org song

Moveon.org's SaveTheInternet blog is touting Democratic Presidential Candidate John Edwards' recent comments supporting net neutrality.

  • So why am I bringing attention to this win by the other side?
  • Well first I think its always important to genuflect to Moveon.org's prowess when they get people to lip synch their talking points "song."

We all know politics is often driven by fear and by creating boogeymen where none really exist -- and at that, Moveon.org is a master.  

The Bogus "Human Face of Net Neutrality" -- Moveon.org as top-down puppeteer

The Politico ran a story April 9th called the "The Human Face of Net Neutrality" that grossly exagerates the "net roots" involvement on net neutrality. 

The article implies that there is somehow a difference between the "Moveon.org net roots" and traditional broadband lobbying.

  • Give me a break.
  • Moveon.org's Free Press/SaveTheInternet is a very sophisticated Washington lobbying operation whose schtick is simulating "grass roots."
  • Lets be real.
  • Moveon.org is basically a 3 million person email list, where Moveon.org's Washington puppeteers pull the strings from the "top down" to "simulate" a "bottoms up" groundswell political movement on net neturality.   
  • I don't buy it.

All this Politico article reports is that Moveon.org was able to "top down" organize dozens of meetings during recess with dozens of members on net neutrality.

More evidence of Google's systematic theft

The body of evidence from mainstream sources that Google systematically steals other's property continues to pile up.

    • "Sohu.com Inc. complained Sunday that the new software appeared to copy material from Sohu's Sogou search engine." "In a statement, Google acknowledged that web surfers have pointed out that some material came from "non-Google data sources." ... Google said: "We are willing to face up to our mistake and willing and offer an apology to users and the Sohu company"
    • While that may sound nice, the article also clearly referred to Google's lack of transparency on these types of issues:
      • Google "gave no indication of what it did, how much was from other sources or how it was included in the new tool."... A Google "spokeswoman said she had no additional information."
    • It is standard operating procedure for Google not to be transparent. Their secrecy is legion and does not inspire trust.

So Google supporters are probably asking "so what?"

 Bottom line: Google likes to brag about its culture of pursuing "innovation without permission."

  • Its just a fancy phrase for a business approach which tolerates and glamourizes trespass and theft to turn a buck.

Moveon.org's self serving motive for supporting net neutrality

In one of my recent Internet searches I came accross a very interesting historical article that appears to predate Moveon.org's creation of SaveTheInternet to promote  so called "net neutrality."

The article in the NYT from fourteen months ago in February of 2006 called "Plan for fees on some emails spurs protest" show that Moveon.org is no different than any other special interest in looking out for themselves.

  • The article explains that Yahoo and AOL were looking to charge bulk emailers a quarter of a cent to a cent per email to deliver their emails.
  • That could have been a big new bill for Moveon.org, which has a three million person email list according to the article. 

When you connect the dots of when all this was occurring -- it is pretty clear that while Moveon.org and consumer groups claimed to be saving the Internet -- they were really asking for self-serving special interest legislation, which would protect them from paying a more market-based-rate for their emailings -- which have to be among the largest bulk emails in the country.

How Moveon.org was able to mobilize so many groups is that they played to their fears that they all might have to pay more in the future because in a market-based system they might have to pay for what they use.

  • So they have helped construct this elaborate net neutrality policy movement to simply protect themselves from having to pay a market-based rate.

What annoys me is that they call broadband companies self-serving, but they are no different.

  • This obvious hypocrisy is off the charts.   

  

Utah holds Google accountable for its "trademark Indentity theft"

It seems that more folks have Google's "number."

It seems Google is learning the lesson the hard way -- that those in glass houses should not throw stones.

Google's CEO is overly defensive in Business Week Interview

Seems Google CEO Eric Scmidt is having his own "Nixonian" moment in a very informative interview in Business Week which accompanied the recent Business Week cover story: "Is Google too Powerful?

  • Just as former President Nixon protested to loudly in saying "I am not a crook!", Google CEO Eric Schmidt appears overly defensive in questions about Google's dominance:
    • In response to the question: "Some people feel Google is now or potentially could become too powerful in that it has such a sway over where people go online. People worry that Google could become the gateway... "
    • Schmidt responded defensively: "I disagree with essentially every half sentence here..."
  • Schmidt's "Nixonian" problem is that Google's behavior and reality are spawning this perception.
    • "People" aren't picking on Google, they are hitting on a chord that resonates with everyone.
    • "People" know Google is too powerful because it routinely behaves as the "divine king" or "emperor" of the Internet in how they treat people.
    • When they trample on and profit from other people's property, they never say they were wrong, or offer an apology, -- they only bribe people to be quiet and go away. Google euphemistically calls these bribes -- "partnerships."
      • Google is another example of the old adage: "absolute power corrupts absolutely."
  • Google's real problem is not that people "percieve" that Google is too powerful, but that it "is actually" too powerful and it routinely behaves in the marketplace in such a way that everyone knows it. 

Let me expose as bogus, Mr Schmidt's core defense of why Google is not too dominant.

Save the taxpayer from the save our spectrum coalition

A group of liberal activists today announced yet another Save... Coalition -- this time a new "Save our Spectrum coalition" that seeks to impose net neutrality on winners of the FCC's upcoming 700 MHz auction.

  • What we really need is a "save the taxpayer" coaltion to protect Americans from bogus social engineering and corporate welfare ideas like net neutrality.

Ironically, these liberal activists want to totally ignore the law, a spectrum auction law that was passed in 1993 by an all Democratic Government!

Pages

Q&A One Pager Debunking Net Neutrality Myths