You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-04-12 13:52
The bottom line here is that net neutrality is all about unsubstantiated allegations of problems.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-04-11 13:21
Moveon.org's SaveTheInternet blog is touting Democratic Presidential Candidate John Edwards' recent comments supporting net neutrality.
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.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-04-11 10:24
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.
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.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-04-10 10:43
The body of evidence from mainstream sources that Google systematically steals other's property continues to pile up.
So Google supporters are probably asking "so what?"
Bottom line: Google likes to brag about its culture of pursuing "innovation without permission."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-04-09 19:57
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.
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.
What annoys me is that they call broadband companies self-serving, but they are no different.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-04-09 19:21
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.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-04-09 10:40
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?"
Let me expose as bogus, Mr Schmidt's core defense of why Google is not too dominant.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-04-05 20:11
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.
Ironically, these liberal activists want to totally ignore the law, a spectrum auction law that was passed in 1993 by an all Democratic Government!
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-04-05 13:54
It seems there is more trouble brewing in the eerily quiet ItsOurNet coalition of online giants who are promoting net neutrality legislation.
Today's WSJ article "Ask.com's Revolt Risks costly clicks" highlights a guerilla ad campaign that Ask.com is running in "London subway cars exhorting commuters to "stop the online information monopoly.""
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-04-05 13:29
A great editorial in the European WSJ, "Net Loss" by analyst Alec Van Gelder, alerts us to the potential for regulatory creep to occur in the European Union (EU) and how it relates to the U.S. net neutrality movement.
This fine WSJ piece alerts us to some potentially troublesome developments in the EU: draft laws are due this July on the EU's "standardization policy for the information and technology sector."
Now it will become more clear why I wrote the commentary "America's Unique Internet Success" in the Washington Times last month.