The Politico ran a story April 9th called the "The Human Face of Net Neutrality" that grossly exagerates the "net roots" involvement on net neutrality. 

The article implies that there is somehow a difference between the "Moveon.org net roots" and traditional broadband lobbying.

• Give me a break.
• Moveon.org's Free Press/SaveTheInternet is a very sophisticated Washington lobbying operation whose schtick is simulating "grass roots."
• Lets be real.
• Moveon.org is basically a 3 million person email list, where Moveon.org's Washington puppeteers pull the strings from the "top down" to "simulate" a "bottoms up" groundswell political movement on net neturality.   
• I don't buy it.

All this Politico article reports is that Moveon.org was able to "top down" organize dozens of meetings during recess with dozens of members on net neutrality.

The body of evidence from mainstream sources that Google systematically steals other's property continues to pile up.

• Today's Wall Street Journal article: "Google apologizes to Sohu for Web Tool's Similarities"
• "Sohu.com Inc. complained Sunday that the new software appeared to copy material from Sohu's Sogou search engine." "In a statement, Google acknowledged that web surfers have pointed out that some material came from "non-Google data sources." ... Google said: "We are willing to face up to our mistake and willing and offer an apology to users and the Sohu company"
• While that may sound nice, the article also clearly referred to Google's lack of transparency on these types of issues:
• Google "gave no indication of what it did, how much was from other sources or how it was included in the new tool."... A Google "spokeswoman said she had no additional information."
• It is standard operating procedure for Google not to be transparent. Their secrecy is legion and does not inspire trust.

So Google supporters are probably asking "so what?"

•  Why this matters is it adds to the mountain of evidence that Google operates "over the line" of legal behavior and/or acceptable business practices.

 Bottom line: Google likes to brag about its culture of pursuing "innovation without permission."

• Its just a fancy phrase for a business approach which tolerates and glamourizes trespass and theft to turn a buck.

In one of my recent Internet searches I came accross a very interesting historical article that appears to predate Moveon.org's creation of SaveTheInternet to promote  so called "net neutrality."

The article in the NYT from fourteen months ago in February of 2006 called "Plan for fees on some emails spurs protest" show that Moveon.org is no different than any other special interest in looking out for themselves.

• The article explains that Yahoo and AOL were looking to charge bulk emailers a quarter of a cent to a cent per email to deliver their emails.
• That could have been a big new bill for Moveon.org, which has a three million person email list according to the article. 

When you connect the dots of when all this was occurring -- it is pretty clear that while Moveon.org and consumer groups claimed to be saving the Internet -- they were really asking for self-serving special interest legislation, which would protect them from paying a more market-based-rate for their emailings -- which have to be among the largest bulk emails in the country.

How Moveon.org was able to mobilize so many groups is that they played to their fears that they all might have to pay more in the future because in a market-based system they might have to pay for what they use.

• So they have helped construct this elaborate net neutrality policy movement to simply protect themselves from having to pay a market-based rate.

What annoys me is that they call broadband companies self-serving, but they are no different.

• This obvious hypocrisy is off the charts.   

It seems that more folks have Google's "number."

• National Journal's Tech Daily reports that the State of Utah has passed legislation to protect trademark owners in Utah from a new kind of identity theft, i.e. search engines (Google) abusing trademark ownership by selling trademarked keyword advertising to competitors.
• Good for Utah!
• Glad somebody is standing up to companies that systematically profit from theft of others' property under the lame guise of "Internet freedom."

It seems Google is learning the lesson the hard way -- that those in glass houses should not throw stones.

Seems Google CEO Eric Scmidt is having his own "Nixonian" moment in a very informative interview in Business Week which accompanied the recent Business Week cover story: "Is Google too Powerful?" 

• Just as former President Nixon protested to loudly in saying "I am not a crook!", Google CEO Eric Schmidt appears overly defensive in questions about Google's dominance:
• In response to the question: "Some people feel Google is now or potentially could become too powerful in that it has such a sway over where people go online. People worry that Google could become the gateway... "
• Schmidt responded defensively: "I disagree with essentially every half sentence here..."
• Schmidt's "Nixonian" problem is that Google's behavior and reality are spawning this perception.
• "People" aren't picking on Google, they are hitting on a chord that resonates with everyone.
• "People" know Google is too powerful because it routinely behaves as the "divine king" or "emperor" of the Internet in how they treat people.
• When they trample on and profit from other people's property, they never say they were wrong, or offer an apology, -- they only bribe people to be quiet and go away. Google euphemistically calls these bribes -- "partnerships."
• Google is another example of the old adage: "absolute power corrupts absolutely."
• Google's real problem is not that people "percieve" that Google is too powerful, but that it "is actually" too powerful and it routinely behaves in the marketplace in such a way that everyone knows it. 

Let me expose as bogus, Mr Schmidt's core defense of why Google is not too dominant.

A group of liberal activists today announced yet another Save... Coalition -- this time a new "Save our Spectrum coalition" that seeks to impose net neutrality on winners of the FCC's upcoming 700 MHz auction.

• What we really need is a "save the taxpayer" coaltion to protect Americans from bogus social engineering and corporate welfare ideas like net neutrality.

Ironically, these liberal activists want to totally ignore the law, a spectrum auction law that was passed in 1993 by an all Democratic Government!

It seems there is more trouble brewing in the eerily quiet ItsOurNet coalition of online giants who are promoting net neutrality legislation.

• One of ItsOurNets' primary funders, IAC's Ask.com, is calling the lead member, Google, an "online information monopoly" in the UK. Ouch!  

Today's WSJ article "Ask.com's Revolt Risks costly clicks" highlights a guerilla ad campaign that Ask.com is running in "London subway cars exhorting commuters to "stop the online information monopoly."" 

A great editorial in the European WSJ, "Net Loss" by analyst Alec Van Gelder, alerts us to the potential for regulatory creep to occur in the European Union (EU) and how it relates to the U.S. net neutrality movement.

• The EU has never met an economic regulation they did not like; that's because the very nature of the EU systematically subordinates individual country's economics to the EU's over-arching imperative of the socialization politics of unity.
• The EU is a political union that forces economic standardization through regulation.

This fine WSJ piece alerts us to some potentially troublesome developments in the EU: draft laws are due this July on the EU's "standardization policy for the information and technology sector."

• The EU mantra of standardization, socialization, and politicization of economics is exactly why the EU is routinely hostile to U.S.-style capitalism and competition that has made our economy the envy of the world for decades.
• In the EU, socialization politics are supreme not economics, freedom, competition or innovation.
• This Government-solution orientation gives the EU a natural and scary bias toward net neutrality.

Now it will become more clear why I wrote the commentary "America's Unique Internet Success" in the Washington Times last month.

National Journal's Tech Daily had an interesting article today reminding us that there is yet another dimension to Google's untrustworthy business behavior.

• "Rep. Brad Miller, D-N.C., wrote a letter Friday, demanding an explanation as to why Google had replaced recent photography with images depicting the region before it was devastated by the hurricane.
• Miller spokeswoman Luann Canipe said: "The congressman's concern is that it was fundamentally dishonest. Certainly the most basic question is, 'Did someone ask you to change the maps and if so, who was it?'" "

What is important here is this is just part of a well documented history and pattern of Google not doing the right thing and making a mockery of their double-negative corporate motto: "Don't be evil."

SaveTheInternet's Free Press arm and other liberal advocacy groups are going to ask the FCC to impose net neutrality on the winners of the upcoming 700 MHz wireless auction, according to Tech Daily on 3-30-07.

• While I guess I have to give these groups credit for their persistence, they are basically spitting into the wind on this one.

Less than two weeks ago, the FCC unanimously voted to classify wireless broadband as an unregulated information service which pratically means that net neutrality does not apply to wireless broadband.