Thanks to a competitive Internet I am grateful to be able to freely respond to personal attacks on me and my pro-Internet competition views.
Mr. Weinstein of www.PFIR.org, People for Internet Responsibility, recently criticized me in his blog, which is his right, however, he did it initially in a manner which appears to be at odds with how Mr. Weinstein has suggested everyone should responsibly conduct themselves on the Internet. In particular, I reference the statement below from PFIR’s website, which is the concluding paragraph of why Mr. Weinstein formed PFIR.
-
“Above all, it's critical that reasonable discussion be encouraged that is free from the overly polarized "yelling and screaming" that often characterizes ongoing debates about Internet issues. It is very important to provide some degree of balance against those persons or groups who might attempt to impose their views on the Internet by edict, without meaningful input from the people whose lives will ultimately be most affected.”
The irony here is that Mr. Weinstein is criticizing me in a very polarized manner for advocating for Internet competition and against a Net Neutrality “edict” in the form of legislation/regulation, when Mr. Weinstein is supposedly opposed to attempts by those who want “to impose their views on the Internet by edict.”
To Mr. Weinstein’s credit, he subsequently and responsibly apologized to me in an update to his critical post for mischaracterizing my views in one instance. I respect and appreciate his responsible correction of his mischaracterization of my views. However, given that both the corrected and uncorrected posts are out there and many people read the uncorrected version, let me rebut the initial criticism so it does not go unaddressed by me.
Anyone who follows my work knows that I fully disclose that I work for the broadband industry as Chairman of www.NetCompetition.org. My guiding views are in NetCompetition.org’s mission statement for everyone to see.
I trust that the free speech we all cherish will have a better chance of survival in a competitive Internet than an Internet either: regulated, owned or controlled by the Government as net neutrality proponents variably propose.
- My views in favor of a competitive Internet are mainstream and the law of the land: “It is the policy of the United States to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation.”
- I am routinely amused how supporters of net neutrality misrepresent that net neutrality is the real “law,” when it actually represents a complete reversal of the successful bipartisan policy and law that has produced the Internet we all enjoy today.
Let me try and responsibly rebut some of Mr. Weinstein’s unsupported assertions.
First, “He shamelessly has been attempting to negatively and inaccurately entwine Google and network neutrality arguments through various writings and public testimony.”
I naturally write about Google because the evidence shows that Google is the single biggest threat to Internet competition and current free market Internet policy in law.
- Google is also the leading proponent, organizer and funder of efforts to impose net neutrality legislation or regulation only on Google’s broadband competitors and not neutrally on all potential Internet gatekeepers like Google.
- Google routinely accuses the broadband industry of not being competitive when by any measure the U.S. broadband industry is increasingly competitive and in fact is the most competitive broadband market in the world.
- In contrast, the U.S. Department of Justice’s antitrust investigation just concluded that Google’s markets are not competitive (with Google controlling 70% share of the Internet search advertising and search syndication markets.) and found that Google’s attempt to partner with Yahoo on ads, would result in a “collaboration” which would control 90% and 95% of the two markets in question.
- In stark contrast to the broadband industry becoming increasingly competitive, the search advertising business is increasingly becoming less competitive and tipping towards a information gatekeeping monopoly that net neutrality proponents allege that they oppose for broadband.
- I write a lot about Google in this debate precisely to spotlight the hypocritical double standard and indefensible selective perspective net neutrality proponents have towards the broadband industry and Google.
I maintain that I am a voice of reason, a provider of fact-driven analysis, and a fierce advocate for preserving Internet competition, and opposing net regulation by the government.
I also understand that policy debates on the Internet often devolve into ad hominum attacks on the messenger because most cannot or are not willing to debate on the merits of the message.
Second, “But in his latest anti-Google tirade regarding that dead ad plan, Cleland stoops to what may be a new low, and appears to now be casting aspersions on President-elect Obama and his upcoming administration. Cleland apparently is concerned that Obama has been seen "palling around" with Google CEO Eric Schmidt, and Cleland seems to be nonsensically suggesting that Schmidt's (quite reasonable, in my opinion) personal endorsement of Obama now presages some sort of sweetheart deal between the Obama administration and Google.”
Anyone that reads my actual post, can see for themselves that I said the opposite of what Mr. Weinstein initially charged. (Once again, I commend Mr. Weinstein for re-reading my post to see that he mischaracterized my views and for correcting it in a subsequent post.)My language is included below to let the reader decide.
“This DOJ statement is particularly noteworthy as a precedent because it was made by a DOJ antitrust chief who is widely regarded as the most lenient enforcer of antitrust in the modern era. What this means is antitrust scrutiny of Google will only increase under the new Obama Administration, which has made it clear that it will more strictly enforce antitrust law than the Bush Administration.
-
Political chatter in the blogosphere that Google’s closeness to the Obama campaign and transition might earn Google an antitrust pass for the next four or eight years, unfairly and irresponsibly impugns the integrity of the Obama Administration, and disregards all the established ethical, legal, and procedural checks and balances in the law enforcement system to prevent and detect attempts by companies to politically influence the outcome of enforcement actions different from what the facts, the law and procedure dictate.”
A responsible reading of my words shows that I am defending the ethics and integrity of the incoming Obama Administration. I believe they will enforce antitrust law as they have said they would, and that I believe they will do so in an ethical manner that follows appropriate procedure and respects due process and the rule of law.
Bottom line:
What disturbs me in this debate is that many net neutrality proponents claim to support free speech and no discrimination on the Internet, but in practice tend to intimidate free speech and discriminate against views they disagree with.
