Re: I dont know how to title this but on net-netrality, google and the world may fit

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed () reed com>
> Date: November 11, 2008 12:45:09 PM EST
> To: dave () farber net
> Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
> Subject: Re: [IP] I dont know how to title this but on net- 
> netrality, google and the world may fit
>
> On the subject of threats to competition, I'd suggest based on my  
> experience that the anti-trust laws have clarified this issue quite  
> well.
>
> It's not illegal to *have* a monopoly.   It is illegal to *use* the  
> market power of a monopoly has to do certain things that are  
> otherwise legal for a company with substantial competition.
>
> Microsoft is legally a monopoly today.  In theory, that constrains  
> it from doing certain things.
>
> Google may indeed be shown to have a monopoly on "search" in the  
> Internet.   In theory, then, it may have to restrain itself from  
> doing things that would otherwise be legal.
>
> But Clelend's arguments are disingenuous, because he presents them  
> to contrast Google to first-mile access providers, who are the major  
> funders of NetCompetition, who have both *got* monopolies  
> (government granted) and have tried *use* their monopoly position to  
> block traffic and limit customer choices in many ways by blocking  
> Internet traffic, examining its content, and so forth.
>
> So I could ask here: does Cleland want to make a statement about the  
> dangers of local access monopolies? A lawyer cross-examining his  
> "testimony" would require him to explain how inspection of traffic  
> by local access monopolies is different than that of Google.  I  
> suspect he will try to change the subject to another attack on  
> Google.  Don't let him.
>
> If Cleland did not try to argue that "Google is worse" and directly  
> compare Google to first mile access providers (as he did in Markey's  
> hearing on the same panel as I was, his argument might make more  
> sense.  But in the same breath he tried to argue that an ISP doing  
> DPI on all of its customers' data was "competitive" but Google was  
> anti-competitive.  That makes no sense.
>
> Users can choose whether or not to use "search" and what quer data  
> to send to be "searched" for.   That possibility is not available in  
> the monopoly on the local cable (or oligopoly in rare cases - though  
> when I pointed out to Cable Labs that I had two competing cable  
> services, Richard Greene said jokingly at the FCC TAC, "we'll fix  
> that").
>
> Google's monopoly, if there is one, is of a different kind than the  
> actual monopoly of first mile access networks, which he defends.
>
>
>
> David Farber wrote:
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: "Scott Cleland" <scleland () precursor com>
> > Date: November 11, 2008 10:26:15 AM EST
> > To: "David Farber" <dave () farber net>
> > Subject: Thanks for opportunity to respond...RE: Any comment to  
> > attach to this when (and if) I send out
> >
> > David,
> >
> > Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond and share the  
> > other
> > side of the story. Here's my blog post response in link and in text:
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > http://www.precursorblog.com/content/responding-more-personal-attacks-my
> > -views-people-internet-responsibility-no-less
> >
> > Responding to more personal attacks on my views -- from People for
> > Internet Responsibility no less!
> > View Edit
> > Blog Entry Responding to more personal attacks on my views -- from
> > People for Internet Responsibility no less! has been created.
> > Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-11-11 11:11
> > Antitrust Google Net Neutrality Yahoo
> > Thanks to a competitive Internet I am grateful to be able to freely
> > respond to personal attacks on me and my pro-Internet competition  
> > views.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Mr. Weinstein of www.PFIR.org, People for Internet Responsibility,
> > recently criticized me in his blog, which is his right, however, he  
> > did
> > it initially in a manner which appears to be at odds with how Mr.
> > Weinstein has suggested everyone should responsibly conduct  
> > themselves
> > on the Internet. In particular, I reference the statement below from
> > PFIR's website, which is the concluding paragraph of why Mr.  
> > Weinstein
> > formed PFIR.
> >
> > "Above all, it's critical that reasonable discussion be encouraged  
> > that
> > is free from the overly polarized "yelling and screaming" that often
> > characterizes ongoing debates about Internet issues. It is very
> > important to provide some degree of balance against those persons or
> > groups who might attempt to impose their views on the Internet by  
> > edict,
> > without meaningful input from the people whose lives will  
> > ultimately be
> > most affected."
> > The irony here is that Mr. Weinstein is criticizing me in a very
> > polarized manner for advocating for Internet competition and  
> > against a
> > Net Neutrality "edict" in the form of legislation/regulation, when  
> > Mr.
> > Weinstein is supposedly opposed to attempts by those who want "to  
> > impose
> > their views on the Internet by edict."
> >
> > To Mr. Weinstein's credit, he subsequently and responsibly  
> > apologized to
> > me in an update to his critical post for mischaracterizing my views  
> > in
> > one instance. I respect and appreciate his responsible correction  
> > of his
> > mischaracterization of my views. However, given that both the  
> > corrected
> > and uncorrected posts are out there and many people read the  
> > uncorrected
> > version, let me rebut the initial criticism so it does not go
> > unaddressed by me.
> >
> > Anyone who follows my work knows that I fully disclose that I work  
> > for
> > the broadband industry as Chairman of www.NetCompetition.org. My  
> > guiding
> > views are in NetCompetition.org's mission statement for everyone to  
> > see.
> >
> >
> > I trust that the free speech we all cherish will have a better  
> > chance of
> > survival in a competitive Internet than an Internet either:  
> > regulated,
> > owned or controlled by the Government as net neutrality proponents
> > variably propose.
> >
> > My views in favor of a competitive Internet are mainstream and the  
> > law
> > of the land: "It is the policy of the United States to preserve the
> > vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the
> > Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by  
> > Federal
> > or State regulation."
> > I am routinely amused how supporters of net neutrality misrepresent  
> > that
> > net neutrality is the real "law," when it actually represents a  
> > complete
> > reversal of the successful bipartisan policy and law that has  
> > produced
> > the Internet we all enjoy today.
> > Let me try and responsibly rebut some of Mr. Weinstein's unsupported
> > assertions.
> >
> > First, "He shamelessly has been attempting to negatively and
> > inaccurately entwine Google and network neutrality arguments through
> > various writings and public testimony."
> >
> > I naturally write about Google because the evidence shows that  
> > Google is
> > the single biggest threat to Internet competition and current free
> > market Internet policy in law.
> >
> > Google is also the leading proponent, organizer and funder of  
> > efforts to
> > impose net neutrality legislation or regulation only on Google's
> > broadband competitors and not neutrally on all potential Internet
> > gatekeepers like Google.
> > Google routinely accuses the broadband industry of not being  
> > competitive
> > when by any measure the U.S. broadband industry is increasingly
> > competitive and in fact is the most competitive broadband market in  
> > the
> > world.
> > In contrast, the U.S. Department of Justice's antitrust investigation
> > just concluded that Google's markets are not competitive (with Google
> > controlling 70% share of the Internet search advertising and search
> > syndication markets.) and found that Google's attempt to partner with
> > Yahoo on ads, would result in a "collaboration" which would control  
> > 90%
> > and 95% of the two markets in question.
> > In stark contrast to the broadband industry becoming increasingly
> > competitive, the search advertising business is increasingly becoming
> > less competitive and tipping towards a information gatekeeping  
> > monopoly
> > that net neutrality proponents allege that they oppose for broadband.
> > I write a lot about Google in this debate precisely to spotlight the
> > hypocritical double standard and indefensible selective perspective  
> > net
> > neutrality proponents have towards the broadband industry and Google.
> > I maintain that I am a voice of reason, a provider of fact-driven
> > analysis, and a fierce advocate for preserving Internet  
> > competition, and
> > opposing net regulation by the government.
> >
> > I also understand that policy debates on the Internet often devolve  
> > into
> > ad hominum attacks on the messenger because most cannot or are not
> > willing to debate on the merits of the message.
> >
> > Second, "But in his latest anti-Google tirade regarding that dead ad
> > plan, Cleland stoops to what may be a new low, and appears to now be
> > casting aspersions on President-elect Obama and his upcoming
> > administration. Cleland apparently is concerned that Obama has been  
> > seen
> > "palling around" with Google CEO Eric Schmidt, and Cleland seems to  
> > be
> > nonsensically suggesting that Schmidt's (quite reasonable, in my
> > opinion) personal endorsement of Obama now presages some sort of
> > sweetheart deal between the Obama administration and Google."
> >
> > Anyone that reads my actual post, can see for themselves that I  
> > said the
> > opposite of what Mr. Weinstein initially charged. (Once again, I  
> > commend
> > Mr. Weinstein for re-reading my post to see that he  
> > mischaracterized my
> > views and for correcting it in a subsequent post.)My language is
> > included below to let the reader decide.
> >
> > "This DOJ statement is particularly noteworthy as a precedent  
> > because it
> > was made by a DOJ antitrust chief who is widely regarded as the most
> > lenient enforcer of antitrust in the modern era. What this means is
> > antitrust scrutiny of Google will only increase under the new Obama
> > Administration, which has made it clear that it will more strictly
> > enforce antitrust law than the Bush Administration.
> >
> > Political chatter in the blogosphere that Google's closeness to the
> > Obama campaign and transition might earn Google an antitrust pass for
> > the next four or eight years, unfairly and irresponsibly impugns the
> > integrity of the Obama Administration, and disregards all the
> > established ethical, legal, and procedural checks and balances in the
> > law enforcement system to prevent and detect attempts by companies to
> > politically influence the outcome of enforcement actions different  
> > from
> > what the facts, the law and procedure dictate."
> > A responsible reading of my words shows that I am defending the  
> > ethics
> > and integrity of the incoming Obama Administration. I believe they  
> > will
> > enforce antitrust law as they have said they would, and that I  
> > believe
> > they will do so in an ethical manner that follows appropriate  
> > procedure
> > and respects due process and the rule of law.
> >
> >
> > Bottom line:
> >
> >
> > What disturbs me in this debate is that many net neutrality  
> > proponents
> > claim to support free speech and no discrimination on the Internet,  
> > but
> > in practice tend to intimidate free speech and discriminate against
> > views they disagree with.
> >
> > My hope is that all people would be for Internet responsibility and
> > responsible discourse on the Internet.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
> > Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 6:41 PM
> > To: Scott Cleland
> > Subject: Any comment to attach to this when (and if) I send out
> >
> >
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com>
> > Date: November 10, 2008 3:50:38 PM EST
> > To: dave () farber net
> > Cc: lauren () vortex com
> > Subject: New Low for Anti-Net-Neutrality, Anti-Google Forces: Blame
> > Obama!
> >
> >
> >
> >      New Low for Anti-Net-Neutrality, Anti-Google Forces: Blame  
> > Obama!
> >
> >                http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000463.html
> >
> >
> > Greetings.  The election is over, but it appears that one of the
> > most visible spokesmen for anti-network-neutrality ISPs, and for
> > Google-haters more broadly, is merrily borrowing a page from John
> > McCain's losing "guilt-by-association" playbook.
> >
> > Scott Cleland, President of Precursor LLC and chairman of its
> > wholly-owned "anti-neutrality ISPs' mouthpiece" subsidiary
> > Netcompetition.org ( http://www.netcompetition.org ), is a
> > master of trying to divert substantive arguments into the bottomless
> > pit of meaninglessness. He shamelessly has been attempting to
> > negatively and inaccurately entwine Google and network neutrality
> > arguments through various writings and public testimony.
> >
> > I have previously critiqued
> > ( http://www.nnsquad.org/archives/nnsquad/msg01141.html ) some of
> > Cleland's statements, and I'm on record as having been in favor of
> > the (now defunct) Google/Yahoo ad deal as a positive step toward
> > helping to ensure vibrant ad competition in the future
> > ( http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000457.html ).
> >
> > But in his latest anti-Google tirade
> > ( http://tinyurl.com/cleland-anti-google ) regarding that dead ad
> > plan, Cleland stoops to what may be a new low, and appears to now be
> > casting aspersions on President-elect Obama and his upcoming
> > administration.  Cleland apparently is concerned that Obama has been
> > seen "palling around" with Google CEO Eric Schmidt, and Cleland
> > seems to be nonsensically suggesting that Schmidt's (quite
> > reasonable, in my opinion) personal endorsement of Obama now
> > presages some sort of sweetheart deal between the Obama
> > administration and Google.
> >
> > Cleland's continuing anti-net-neutrality, anti-Google vendetta seems
> > to know no bounds.
> >
> > However, I try to be helpful whenever I can, and given Cleland's
> > attitude, I'd like to suggest a possible spokeswoman for his cause
> > who might be a perfect fit: Sarah Palin!  Rumor is she'll have some
> > spare time on her hands for a while at least, and she won't even
> > need a new wardrobe to look stylish when providing public testimony
> > for Cleland's organizations.  Talk about a match made in heaven!
> >
> > Just an idea.  You betcha by golly!
> >
> > --Lauren--
> > Lauren Weinstein
> > lauren () vortex com or lauren () pfir org
> > Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
> > http://www.pfir.org/lauren
> > Co-Founder, PFIR
> >  - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
> > Co-Founder, NNSquad
> >  - Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org
> > Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
> > Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
> > Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------
> > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com