I stumbled upon some more powerful evidence that the SaveTheInternet coalition of 800+ organizations who back net neutrality -- are just special interests looking for a self-serving subsidy handout from the government.

I previously blogged on my theory that the 800+ organizations backing SaveTheInternet cynically know that their members are not really at risk on the Internet from "blocking" etc., but that their organization's cost structures are at risk because they have become addicted to subsidized cheap blast emails.

•  Put more simply, Moveon.org doesn't want to pay anymore than anyone else, even though they consume tons more Internet bandwidth than the people they supposedly serve.
• Think about it. How many average users blast emails regularly to 3 MILLION people! Only spammers blast out emails to that wide of a distribution.
• Then think about how much more bandwidth is required to send out 3 million blast video emails to the Moveon.org email list than is required to send 3 million text emails.

I suspect the other 800+ organizations in SaveTheInternet coalition have made the same self serving calculus, but love to hide behind the populist "human shield" of supposedly looking out for the American consumer.   

Like any other special interest, these SaveTheInternet organizational supporters are lobbying for net neutrality for self-serving reasons, i.e. a law/regulation that would ensure their cost of email distribution would never go up. What a deal!

I wanted to be sure folks saw what Greg Moore, Executive Director of the National NAACP Voter Fund said recently on net neutrality in a commentary piece in the Asbury Park Press: 

• "Given the proven impact of broadband prices on its adoption, policies that increase the cost to users should be forbidden. Now, some well-intentioned online activists are pushing regulations called "net neutrality," which would keep costs low for the large Internet content companies but shift the costs of network expansion mostly to consumers."
• "The effects could be disastrous for low-income and minority communities, pricing them out of the broadband market by guaranteeing a free ride to companies such as Google and eBay while shifting costs for broadband expansion back to consumers. Although net neutrality activists claim to be protecting free speech, net neutrality regulations would effectively silence many minority voices, as low-income communities drop off the online landscape because they can't afford the price of admission."

Extremely well said!

Welcome to Portia Krebs a new blogger at NextGenWeb.org for USTelecom!

I am delighted their will be another blogging voice in the debate promoting the continuation of a free market Internet that remains free of net regulation.

I encourage other people to blog and enter the debate who understand that "Internet freedom" means much more than so called "net neutrality" and free speech, but also means: free market, free enterprise, freedom to be different, freedom of ownership, freedom to choose, freedom of diversity, and freedom of opportunity -- essentially economic freedoms that naturally flow from America's political freedoms!

Watch out when Big Government advocates call for a "national" anything!

• House Telecom Chairman Ed Markey is calling for a "national broadband map."
• Senator Rockefeller (WV) and others are calling for a "national broadband plan."  

Egads! 

A "national broadband plan" is a codeword for a 1970's-style government "industrial policy" where the government decides what technologies consumers get and which companies will succeed of fail. 

• Industrial policies proved economically disastrous -- and thankfully were abandoned in the US -- allowing our economy to flourish.
• Look no further than the mess of the current French economy, which is the world's petri dish for "national" industrial policies. 
• Their economy and employment situation is one of the leading basketcases of Europe.

My first big problem with this "national" thinking is that there is no national broadband problem.

• The US has more facilites-based broadband deployment, investment and competition nationally than any other country -- by a wide margin.
• Is deployment perfect nationwide? of course not.
• If there is a broadband problem it is in some isolated rural areas.
• We may have a "rural" broadband problem but not a "national" broadband problem!

My second big problem is Senator Rockefeller's call for a new "national" goal of 10Mbps broadband by 2010 and 100 Mbps by 2015.

USA Today reported today that "Google accounted for 65.3% of all U.S. online searches for the four weeks ended April 28, up from 58.6% in April 2006, according to web tracker Hitwise."

Hitwise has:

• Google at      65.3%
• Yahoo at       20.7%
• Microsoft at    8.5%
• Ask.com  at     3.7%

To be fair, Hitwise has Google a little higher than ComScore or Neilsen NetRatings in absolute terms, but all three consistently record the same inexorable fact: Google is increasing its dominance of Internet search.

Kudos to Steve Pociask of the American Consumer Institute on his excellent paper on: "Net Neutrality and the Effects on Consumers."

• It should be required reading for all consumer groups.
• It exposes how net neutrality does not benefit the average American consumer, but benefits special interests like high-volume Internet users... like consumer "groups."   

Steve's clear, insightful, and easy-to-read paper explains how net neutrality would harm consumers by:

If you care about the reality of American competitiveness and innovation be sure to check out the recent Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) global digital rankings.

• "The EIU e-readiness rankings for 2007 ranked 69 countries in terms of six criteria. In order of importance, these are: consumer and business adoption; connectivity and technology infrastructure; business environment, social and cultural environment, government policy and vision; and legal and policy environment."

What's most interesting, is that this objective ranking by the respected Economist, does not show the negative broadband outlook or assessment of the US that the OECD ranking does. 

• In this EIU overall ranking, the United States ranks #2, not 12th or 15th like in the OECD rankings.
• The EIU full report also has North America ranked higher than Western Europe in broadband affordability!
• Listen to this quote from the full report:
• "The US, with its heavily entrepreneurial culture, penchant for innovation and highly IT-literate workforce and student population, stands clear at the top of the group." 
• Concerning "Consumer and business adoption: The report says:
• "In the sheer scale of individual and business Internet use, the US certainly dwarfs all other countries."
• "There is some concern that the great weight of the US in online activity makes it a sponge for the world's available digital resources, including talent and funding."

So why is this EIU report important? 

Harry Gold on ClickZ gives a good and balanced review of the "Pros and cons of Google and Doubleclick."

• As an industry insider, he gives a sophisticated analysis that is worth the read.  
• This was the most interesting factoid to me:
• Doubleclick's "DART does have a hold on over 70 percent of the ad-serving marketing, according to a March 2007 CIMA/William Blair study. Also on the paranoia side of the equation: the data Google and DART collectively have on the population at large are already rather Big Brotherish, never mind Google extending its cookies' reach onto DART's network of sites.

eGoogle-YouTube was sued yet again for rampant copyright infringement in U.S. District Court in New York.

• See www.youtubeclassaction.com

Plaintiffs, including the English Football Association Premier League and others said in their court filing that Google-YouTube is "pursuing a deliberate strategy of engaging in, permitting, encouraging, and facilitating massive copyright infringement" in order to increase the value of Google by generating more traffic which it could monetize without having to pay for.

Why is this British suit particularly interesting? Remember the fact that Google already has 75% share of the search market in the UK?

I always take time to read interviews with CEOs because I always learn something.

• The USA Today cover story interview with Steve Ballmer of April 30th was no exception.

What did he say that was relevant to the Google-DoubleClick?

First, he made the case why the Google-DoubleClick merger is a big deal:

• "I do think that it would be worth the regulators taking time to understand this market, much the way they took the time to understand other parts of the technology business, because the whole future of the media and advertising will move to the Internet. "
• "What we think of television today, what we think of newspapers, magazines, you name it -- all of these things are going to move to the Internet and be funded by advertising. And so we are talking about a pretty important part of ... people's basic lives." 
• What this means is that Google-Doubleclick is about the evolution and the future of advertising. 

In response to a question about being third in search -- Ballmer said: