You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-05-03 10:33
The WSJ yesterday had an illuminating interview with David Rosenblatt CEO of DoubleClick about its acquisition by Google.
Mr. Rosenblatt engaged in some pretty effective "spin" so I thought it would be helpful to shine a brighter light on some of his pat answers that were... how should I say it... less than forthcoming.
In response to a question about whether he could reassure web publishers that Google did not have too much market power, he said: "Google shares revenues with publishers so it makes sense that their interests are pretty much aligned."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-05-02 14:33
I recommend listening to Larry Irving's, (President of the Internet Innovation Alliance) keynote at the Killer App expo that can be heard by podcast.
He makes a great point. It makes no sense to tax an engine of economic growth as mucha s we do.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-05-01 19:53
Google blasted Viacom today in the press for suing Google in court for "building a business on a library of copyrighted video clips without permission," according to the NYT today.
Let's have some fun and dissect some of the Google quotes and translate what they are really thinking behind their PR spin...
Google's filing said:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-05-01 19:10
I always love to juxtapose a couple of stories to point out irony.
Yesterday, I blogged that Tech Daily reported that the Google gang, AKA ItsOurNet ... will be relaunched in May as the "Open" Net coalition.
Well today I laughed out loud when I read in Tech Daily, that Wikipedia cofounder Jimmy Wales is promoting a new collaborative search process like the wiki online encyclopedia.
Seems like those who really know "open" don't think Google is worthy of its self annointed name of the "Open" Net Coalition.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-05-01 18:38
Danny Sullivan of Advertising Age spotllights another systematic Google privacy invasion in his great new article: "Google's latest power grab."
Check this out:
One more way Google spies on you, but of course it's only for your own good!
Google is amassing an amazing profiling database on people that would be extremely frightening if it fell into the hands of bad people: criminals, stalkers, predators, con artists etc.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-04-30 18:40
The ItsOurNet coalition is relaunching under a new name the "Open Internet Coalition" in May according to Todays' National Journal's Tech Daily .
I must say I am sad to see the ItsOurNet name fall by the wayside, it was a glorious pinata of a concept.
It also will be interesting to see if they have retooled the substance of their message and if they will abandon Moveon.org and the Dorgan-Snowe bill to try and appear more reasonable and practical.
Reading between the lines of the article it seems Moveon is "on" the defensive so to speak.
lastly it will be interesting to see if:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-04-27 15:32
Declan McCullagh of CNET has a very insightful piece called: "Missing : Politicians who take a clear stand on tech" where he spotlights that net neutrality is not on either the Democrat or Republican tech policy agendas.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-04-26 15:56
I listened in to SaveTheInternet's conference call with reporters in celebration of their one year anniversary.
Senator Dorgan (D-ND) author of the pending Dorgan-Snowe Bill was the keynote and star.
Craig Newmark was second to speak and he asserted everyone he knew was for NN. (I guess we should give up now.)
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-04-25 14:47
Curt Monash in his blog suggests a "third way" for net neutrality to go -- applying regulation to the "JeffersonNet" or "bandwidth-light" parts of the Internet while not applying it to the "EdisonNet," the more "communications-rich" applications where regulation would be an impediment.
With all due respect, the "middle way" thinking is seriously flawed because it assumes a compromise between views with equal merit.
In order to talk net neutrality compromise, net neutrality proponents have to make the case that they have legitimate concerns to begin with.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-04-25 10:55
Listening to the House and Senate Democrats in yesterday's congressional hearings say "there can be no debate" "or dispute" that the U.S. is falling behind in broadband, when House and Senate Republicans, expert witnesses and the Administration were debating the validity of that very point directly before them, indicates that this "debatable point" is the exact type of "assessment of the facts" for which the Congress created the GAO to sort out.
Congressional Democrats appear to be embracing the findings of the OECD on broadband as gospel when the OECD has obvious competitive motive to put EU countries in the best light and the U.S. in the worst light.