You are here Google
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-06-14 11:11
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-06-13 22:11
I was glad to see a heavyweight group of economists systematically debunk Frontline's economic gymnastics to try and justify a sweetheart spectrum deal for Frontline at the expense of the American taxpayer.
Remember, there is nothing "neutral" about trying to shaft the American taxpayer!
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-06-13 10:48
It is very rare when I feel compelled to praise the liberal New York Times editorial board for one of its editorial positions, but to be fair, I must when they get an issue dead right.
George Orwell's seminal book "1984" ingrained the totalitarian metaphorical threat of "Big Brother" in the world's thinking and lexicon.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-06-12 17:53
Public interest groups supportive of net neutrality like Common Cause and The Maine Civil Liberties Union are trying to "spin" the press that the non-binding net neutrality resolution passed by the Maine Senate is somehow an important first for a state.
- The reality is that supporters of net neutrality thought that the support of net neutrality by Dorgan-Snowe co-sponsor and Maine Senator Olympia Snowe would somehow increase the chances of passing net neutrality legislation for the first time in the state of Maine.
- They were wrong.
- This legislative effort in Maine failed just like it did in Michigan and Maryland, and just like it did in every Federal forum it was raised in.
- This Maine Senate "non-binding resolution" is simply hortatory puffery, akin to naming a state insect or a state weed.
- The reality is that the Maine legislature did not pass legislation and that it clearly acknowledged in its resolution its understanding that the Internet is exclusively Federal jurisdiction.
- There is nothing that could be more Federal or "interstate" than the "INTERnet!"
This episode in Maine really is emblematic of the whole net neutrality movement.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-06-11 10:55
Google, in making a high-profile complaint to the Justice Department and State Attorney Generals, about Microsoft's latest operating system Vista, appears to be naively unaware of its own antitrust vulnerabilities in its pending Google-DoubleClick antitrust review at the FTC.
It has always been unwise for those in "glass houses to throw stones."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Sun, 2007-06-10 22:54
Just after Google's CEO Eric Schmidt summarily dismissed privacy concerns as an issue in the FTC's review of the Google-DoubleClick merger, a privacy watchdog group said "Google inc.'s privacy practices are the worst among the Internet's top destinations," according to an AP article "Watchdog group slams Google on privacy."
- "...London-based Privacy International assigned Google its lowest possible grade. The category is reserved for companies with "comprehensive consumer surveilance and entrenched hostility to privacy."
American privacy groups are petitioning the FTC (EPIC, CDD, and US PIRG) to address the privacy issue in the context of the Google-DoubleClick merger.
-
Privacy groups in the US and in Europe are rallying around this issue, because as the NY State Consumer Protection Board has said: "Google's database...will make up the world's single largest repository of both personally and non-personally identifiable information."
-
Investors and others that dismiss privacy as a competitive concern in the Google-DoubleClick merger -- do so at their own peril.
Why is privacy a competitive issue in the Google-DoubleClick merger?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-06-07 18:20
FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell gave an outstanding speech today at the Broadband Policy Summit in which he did the single best job I have seen totally debunking the OECD rankings that purportedly indicate the US is falling behind on broadband.
Commissioner McDowell explains with example after example -- how skewed the OECD methodology is.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-06-06 11:33
Like the discredited and shameful congressional practice of fleecing the American taxpayer with "earmarking" public funds for special interests, Frontline-Google and eBay-Skype are asking for the equivalent of special interest commercial "earmarks" from the FCC.
It is outrageous that the FCC is actually entertaining these proposed special interest scams against the American taxpayer.
What am I talking about specifically? Two special interest spectrum/policy "earmarks" are getting a lot of press attention lately.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-06-05 19:26
Yet another state legislature has rejected passing a law mandating net neutrality -- this time in Maine, the home state of Senator Olympia Snowe, one of net neutrality's primary sponsors and highest profile proponents in the US Senate.
-
Moveon.org/SaveTheInternet are now 0-3 in their hand-picked states where they thought they had the best chance of passing a version of the Senate Snowe-Dorgan bill or the House Markey bill from last year -- and where they focused their efforts.
-
Previously, Moveon.org?SaveTheInternet failed to pass net neutrality legislation in Michigan, and Maryland.
To let the net neutrality proponents save face, the Maine Senate passed a resolution, not legislation, that asks for a study on net neutrality to be completed next year.
-
This is the same outcome as has occurred at the Federal level as both the FTC and FCC are studying net neutrality and seeking comments.
-
Moreover, the Maine resolution also recognizes that net neutrality is a federal issue and that Maine does not have jurisdiction over the net neutrality issue.
I fully expect that Moveon.org and SaveTheInterent will continue to waste valuable state legislative time and resources on a problem they cannot even define or prove exists.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-06-04 19:09
Pages
|