You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-10-25 16:04
The plot thickens. Robert Cox of The Examiner has produced another must-read piece uncovering much more detail of the closeness of the Google-Moveon.org relationship: "New questions raised on Google, Moveon.org relationship."
What's new and fresh in this piece is the very detailed timeline that connects-the-dots of all of the coverage to assemble a compelling chonology that shows how Google did not follow its own policies and procedures, or even trademark law and practice, in order to censor other's free speech that would be critical of their close political ally Moveon.org.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-10-24 15:07
Given the Associated Press' mission is to be the essential global news network, providing distinctive news services of the highest quality, reliability and objectivity with reports that are accurate, balanced and informed;" it seems fair to test whether or not AP Peter Svensson's series on Comcast's network management have lived up to AP's high standards.
First, is this news or did this border on advocacy?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-10-23 14:28
The recent AP story "Comcast blocks some Internet traffic" has refocused many on the real question at the core of the net neutrality debate -- "should broadband networks be managed?"
The pro-net neutrality point of view, which the AP reporter ably represented in his article, is essentially making the standard net neutrality movement case that:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-10-22 12:21
I normally consider myself a big fan of Walter Mossberg's technology reviews in the Wall Street Journal, but for today I am a big critic of Mr. Mossberg's woefully uniformed and one-sided opinion piece on public policy "Free my Phone."
Obviously frustrated at the technical reality that the bandwidth availability of telecommunications devices has not kept pace with the faster growth in computer processing, Mr. Mossberg lashes out at public policy as the cause in an emotional diatribe that illogically concludes that "if the government...breaks the crippling power that the wireless carriers exert today, the free market will deliver a... happy ending."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-10-19 18:10
In the latest desperate attempt by net neutrality proponents to find something, anything, that will galvanize their supporters in Congress to do something on net neutrality to show the issue is not on life support -- FreePress put out a press release that has desperately leaps on an AP story that alleges that "Comcast blocks some Internet traffic" -- in hopes to revive their call for net neutrality hearings and legislation.
Before the net neutrality movement hyper-ventilates themselves in the usual frenzy that these type of one-sided pro-net neutrality stories generate, its important to go and read what the FCC's bipartisan net neutrality policy statement actually says in the final words of its official statement: that the net neutrality "principles we adopt are subject to reasonable network management."
"Reasonable network management." The FCC and others that are "reasonable" about this issue realize that the net neutrality radical's insistence that every bit be treated equally is simply not the way the Internet has ever been run, nor has it ever been required for cable companies, nor does it make any real world sense!
First, I have a one-pager that point-by-point debunks "The Net is Neutral Myth." This "neutral" perception is manufactured and not based on fact but a radical political agenda.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-10-18 10:56
It's important to highlight yet another official/legal repudiation of the net neutrality movement's common carrier regulation agenda.
Why is this important?
The significance of this appeals court affirmation of the legitimacy of the FCC's highly-market-successful broadband deregulation policy is that the legal precedents for maintaining broadband as an unregulated competitive service are piling up and becoming extremely difficult to reverse in the future.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-10-15 11:06
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-10-11 12:44
Robert Cox, the Founder and President of the Media Bloggers Association, a non-partisan professional standards group, reports that Google has blocked the running of U.S. Senator Susan Collins' anti-Moveon.org ads on Google.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-10-10 18:51
Listening to Google's General Counsel testify at the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on the Google-DoubleClick merger which I also testified at, one would think everyone loves Google and all was just "teddie bears and rainbows" for consumers in Googleland.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-10-10 11:03
Reed Hundt's Frontline Wireless, is reportedly forming a high-profile "Open Access Advisory Council" for the 700 MHz spectrum auction, which includes "net neutrality" term-coiner and celebrity Columbia Law Professor Tim Wu.
I have two pieces of unsolicited advice for Frontline's new advisory council."
Bottom line: The auction is "open" to Frontline Wireless bidding and winning its desired spectrum. Frontline Wireless has complete "freedom" to offer a more "open" platform than the FCC's new "open" 700 MHz regulations now require.