You are here
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 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 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 Wed, 2007-04-04 16:04
National Journal's Tech Daily had an interesting article today reminding us that there is yet another dimension to Google's untrustworthy business behavior.
What is important here is this is just part of a well documented history and pattern of Google not doing the right thing and making a mockery of their double-negative corporate motto: "Don't be evil."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-04-03 19:39
SaveTheInternet's Free Press arm and other liberal advocacy groups are going to ask the FCC to impose net neutrality on the winners of the upcoming 700 MHz wireless auction, according to Tech Daily on 3-30-07.
Less than two weeks ago, the FCC unanimously voted to classify wireless broadband as an unregulated information service which pratically means that net neutrality does not apply to wireless broadband.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-04-02 17:26
Its a great problem to have.
Why I like the flash video so much is that it persuasively spotlights how vibrant and healthy the Internet is today.
If net neutrality proponents were more responsible they would also be focused on solving real (not hypotheical) ongoing problems that are critical to every user every day, which is how to increase the Internet's capacity so that it can continue to operate as it has or better.
The Bottom line: Net neutrality proponents are missing the proverbial forest for the trees.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-03-30 17:05
Business Week's cover story is: "Is Google too Powerful?" is exactly the question a major publication that thinks ahead should be asking.
Business Week has done everyone a favor in posing this cover question because it will get folks looking at Google in a new way -- as the dominant antitrust concern of the market place in the decade ahead, like Microsoft was in the 1990's, AT&T was in the late 1970s/early 1980s and IBM was in the 1950s.
Mark my words, the words "Google" and "antitrust" will be heard much more frequently together -- in the years ahead -- as Google has gone from 35% to 50% market share today in a couple of years and is on path inexorably towards 60-70% share in the next few years.
While it is clearly debatable if Google is too powerful today...