Much has changed since May when FreePress orchestrated a torrent of nasty criticism directed at the FCC Chairman when it was signaled to the Washington Post that he was considering leaving broadband de-regulated and not adopting a Title II broadband approach.

Since then, Google negotiated a proposed compromise with Verizon to resolve the net neutrality Gordian knot that importantly did not advocate Title II regulation of the broadband Internet.

• More importantly, Google did not back down from their proposed compromise when FreePress subjected Google to the "the FreePress treatment" i.e. public relations mob torture -- for their apostasy.

Since then, House Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman also negotiated a proposed solution to the net neutrality Gordian knot that did not advocate Title II regulation of the broadband Internet.

Google announced it is working on an economy-wide Google Price Index, but has not decided whether to make it public, per Google Chief Economist, Hal Varian, who spoke at the National Association of Business Economists conference this week.

• This development has under-appreciated implications for insider trading and also spotlights how Google's online dominance of market-relevant information suggests market failure and a new potential systemic vulnerability to the integrity of global capital markets.

I.  Insider Trading

In March, Google CEO Eric Schmidt said: "One day we had a conversation where we figured out we could just try and predict the stock market... and then we decided it was illegal. So we stopped doing that."

Now any hedge fund (or market regulator not born yesterday) understands that if Google is actively working on a Google Price Index, Google has not stopped trying to use its uniquely comprehensive and timely, repository of sensitive market information to predict information highly useful to predicting the stock market.

FreePress continues to urge the FCC to ignore everything, but Title II chauvinism.

• "If Genachowski reestablishes (the FCC's) authority and moves on net neutrality, he will be viewed as a heroic FCC Chairman. If he doesn't, he will be viewed as one of the agency's greatest failures."
• In other words, the FCC is either totally with FreePress or totally against FreePress.
• There's no negotiation, collaboration, bipartisanship, comity, reason, or compromise in FreePress' radical playbook, only total victory or slash and burn devastation.

The list of what FreePress expects the FCC to ignore is growing to tragicomic proportions.

FreePress urges the FCC to:

Google's blog post "What we're driving at" announced that Google has "developed technology for cars to drive themselves." Google stated: "Larry and Sergey founded Google because they wanted to help solve really big problems using technology... Our goal is to help prevent traffic accidents, free up people's time and reduce carbon emissions..."

This project raises some interesting questions no one has asked Google yet.

Why are the Big Four networks Fox, NBC, ABC, and CBS, not flocking to Google TV, the largest digital video distribution network in the the world -- by far? And why did Forrester's analyst characterize Google TV's programmer sign-ups to date as "underwhelming?"

The core reason is a profound vision and business model clash between existing programmers/distributors and Google Inc. Why?

In his latest display of no-self-awareness, Google's CEO Eric Schmidt, in an interview with the Atlantic, said:

• "China can be best understood as a large, well run business... and China has roughly the following objectives: It wants  to maximize its cash flow; becoming the creditor, if you will, the bank of the world. And Second it wants to maximize both its internal demand as well as export demand. And the entire country seems to be organized around that principle."

Is Google's CEO the only sentient being on the planet that isn't aware that China is organized around the principles of China's National Communist Party?

"If China is best understood as a large, well-run business," why does Communist China censor and imprison their Chinese "customers" if they object too much to China's products and services?

The SEC/CFTC report on the May 6th "Flash Crash" helps confirm that automated index trading technology was a contributing cause of the 2008 Financial Crisis and why recent financial reforms are not enough to address the ongoing destructive systemic vulnerability that automated index trading technology increasingly poses for financial markets going forward.

After four years of FreePress' Chicken Little "the net neutrality sky is falling," faux-urgency tactics, the net neutrality movement has lost a lot of credibility and influence. We all know that the net neutrality sky has not fallen and that the broadband industry has not acted anti-competitively as claimed; on the contrary, the broadband industry has worked constructively and tirelessly to address the FCC's net neutrality enforcement concerns in a reasonable and constructive manner that promotes innovation, investment, growth and jobs.

No matter, FreePress is back at trying to manufacture some faux urgency magic by ginning up breathless op-eds from friendlies that the "time is now," that "there is a closing window of opportunity" to act on net neutrality. Rob Pegararo writes on cue: "It's put-up or shut-up time for net neutrality advocates," and the Seattle Times provides a little harmony in the dwindling net neutrality chorus in its editorial: "The time has passed for compromise on net neutrality."

FreePress' problem is that people have wised up to their repeated hysterical calls to "Save the Internet" from a problem that has never materialized as they recklessly warned. FreePress has failed miserably in finding or defining any real-world problem that needs radical intervention to fix.

This latest FreePress-generated media-manipulation-fest urging the FCC to regulate the broadband Internet as a 1934 telephone utility, still has no facts or true urgency behind it, only increasingly desperate faux urgency tactics.

I'm in Tokyo Japan and just got done giving the keynote speech to about 100 Japanese industry representatives at a forum on the negative impact on competition and innovation of the partnership between Yahoo-Japan and Google, which will control over 90% of the Japanese search advertising market.

• The remarkable thing about the event was that it was literally the first public debate or 'open' discussion of the deal among affected stakeholders in Japan since the deal was approved secretly a few months ago!

I explained the three "Ds" of the deal: dependency, decline and disintermediation (see the full speech below.) There was a Google-friendly panel of two professors and a journalist that critiqued my speech and I was afforded full opportunity to rebut all their points.

It is amazing to me that a deal that has such far-reaching negative effects on Japanese industry, Japan's economy, identity and culture, as this, was decided without any consultation or input from industry or other parts of Government affected by the deal.

House Democrats have proposed a resolution to Net Neutrality that strongly signals to the FCC majority to not pursue its considered Title II reclassification of broadband as a 1934 regulated telephone service. The House Democrats' draft is here. The implications of this House draft are broad, important and constructive.

First, this House Democrat draft signals to the FCC Democrat majority loud and clear that House Democrats do not support the radical FreePress-driven proposal to regulate broadband Internet networks as 1934 common carrier telephone networks.

Second, it proves that the FreePress-driven proposal to takeover the Internet and regulate it as a public utility is extreme, way out of the political mainstream, and a non-starter.

Third, this legislation proposes a sensible resolution and workable alternative to this destructive polarizing issue that is serving no one who seeks an open Internet that works, grows and innovates without anti-competitive concerns, but only the revolutionary interests of FreePress and its allies that claim they want net neutrality, but really seek a utopian "information commons revolution."