Today Microsoft launched a new program for telecom operators, carriers, software vendors and developers called "Connected Services Sandbox."  According to Microsoft "the sandbox will encourage the creation of "managed network mash-ups" in which Microsoft's Web services are combined with telecom services so Microsoft can fulfill its ambition of offering its software as a service model over the Internet.
Has anyone at Microsoft thought this through? As I explained in my recent open letter to Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer, Microsoft's hamhandedness in Washington has already resulted in Microsoft being subject to the FCC's net neutrality principles and regulatory jurisdiction. This new endeavor is just another example in a long litany of Micosoft Internet businesses that are not neutral and discriminate for commercial gain.
How is their sandbox neutral? Let me quote directly from Microsoft's own press release which is pretty incriminating: "BT will have early exposure, visibility and access to the winning services including the ability to test and deploy the prototype services." Â
If Microsoft opposes a two tier Internet and does not want any blocking, degrading or impairing on the net, why does BT get discriminatory "access" to the Sandbox? Why is Microsoft allowing a degrading or impairing of other's access to this Internet content, application and innovation?  Could it be that money is exchanging hands? Could Microsoft be engaged in the normal business practice of where companies negotiate deals bilaterally and not universally on the net as net neutrality would require? Could Microsoft be committing committing blatant business and and unadulterated commercialishness? Shame on Microsoft for being so unapologetically capitalistic. What will their neutral SaveTheInternet friends think? Â
Looks as if the Microsoft leadership has not fully communicated to its troops that Microsoft is a leading prophet of neutralism, and as the most dominant company in the world involved in the Internet, that noone at Microsoft can treat anyone or any company differently than anyone else on the Internet. One size for all or no size for any, is what Microsoft's net neutrality stands for. Microsoft must learn to lead better by example.
It also looks like Microsoft needs better internal controls, to ensure that Microsoft does not engage in any more discriminatory business behavior un-allowed by Microsoft's newly adopted net neutrality doctrine.  Isn't that the only way to ensure Microsoft's new sandbox remains pure and neutral and does not become a capitalistic "kitty litter box?"
