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: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com>
Date: November 11, 2008 2:01:05 PM EST
To: dave () farber net
Cc: lauren () vortex com
Subject: Re: [IP] I dont know how to title this but on net-netrality,  
google and the world may fit


Dave,

I feel the need to add a brief comment to Scott Cleland's posting.
First, as he noted, I promptly corrected my misinterpretration of
his comments vis-a-vis the upcoming Obama administration.  That
corrective text is here:

http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000464.html

However, interested readers may wish to read his entire original
blog entry ( http://tinyurl.com/cleland-anti-google -- orginal URL
too long for inclusion here) to get a better sense of the context
and organization of his posting and why I (and apparently some
others) initially missed his point in that specific respect.

On the broader issues regarding the Network Neutrality debates and
Scott's consistently anti-Google stance, I stand by my many
public statements and will not detail them again here.

The ISP industry -- and Scott's organization -- have clearly
determined that their best bet, in the finest tradition of "The
Emperor's New Clothes" -- is to try divert attention from the sorry
state of effective U.S. broadband competition by inappropriately
targeting Google as the designated enemy.  Whenever someone has
something negative to say about ISPs, simply respond with a
gratuitous and inaccurate "But Google is worse!"

But this approach is very risky, because most consumers already
*know* how bad the ISP competition situation is in the U.S. -- and
as erratically varying bandwidth caps are deployed, the situation
will be even more obvious while the ISPs continue to tighten the
screws on their subscribers.  All of the Google bashing in the world
isn't going to create any additional broadband competition.  And the
large ISPs seem to like it that way.

In any case, I have never suggested that these debates be stifled in
any way, and Scott's opinions are certainly important aspects of
these discussions, no matter how much I personally disagree with
most of his views related to this topic area.

However, I do urge interested readers to explore the full context of
all our writings in their original forums, and not rely on excerpts
which are necessarily limited in their scope.

--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

- - -

>

> 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