Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-05-11 18:18
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.
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!
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-05-11 10:42
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:
Extremely well said!
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-05-10 15:40
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!
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-05-10 12:03
Watch out when Big Government advocates call for a "national" anything!
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.
My first big problem with this "national" thinking is that there is no 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.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-05-10 10:34
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."
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.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-05-09 11:44
Kudos to Steve Pociask of the American Consumer Institute on his excellent paper on: "Net Neutrality and the Effects on Consumers."
Steve's clear, insightful, and easy-to-read paper explains how net neutrality would harm consumers by:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-05-08 17:39
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.
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.
So why is this EIU report important?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-05-07 12:30
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-05-07 10:34
eGoogle-YouTube was sued yet again for rampant copyright infringement in U.S. District Court in New York.
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?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-05-04 17:45
I always take time to read interviews with CEOs because I always learn something.
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:
In response to a question about being third in search -- Ballmer said: