Comments on: Is David All advocating Net Regulation?

By: Google watcher

Google watcher — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 20:48:43 +0000

David All takes money from Google to be their figleaf. He of course does not disclose this in his writing. He also created a mailing list which was supposed to promote frank discussions among the right about tech issues. Unbenownst to everyone on the list, he secretly invited left-wing bloggers onto it to spy on the conversation. He never admitted it until it was exposed by a list member.

The guy is a corrupt slimeball who is an embarrassment to the conservative online coalition.

By: E!! (Elizabeth Crum)

E!! (Elizabeth Crum) — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:54:39 +0000

Hey Eric! I was wondering when you'd finally chime in on the Continuing Saga of the Complete and Utter Nonsense of David All. (LOL) Nice writing. E!! (Elizabeth Crum)'s last blog post..What a Girl Wants

By: Me

Me — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:00:30 +0000

Isn’t David All a consultant for the Open Internet Coalition?

Why didn’t he disclose that?

By: Eric Odom

Eric Odom — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:31:22 +0000

And by the way… I don’t think we want to bring Google into this conversation. I’ll take the high road and not mention the details of that thought, but let’s just say it isn’t pretty.

By: Eric Odom

Eric Odom — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:28:41 +0000

@Jack… I was referring to Telecoms.

I’m fully aware that Google does this, but Net Regulation would empower Google to do it even more. Google controls search, not bandwidth.

By: Jackalope's Voice

Jackalope's Voice — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:25:57 +0000

"The companies aren’t really going to block certain content, are they?" Didn't Google do just that in order to get that Chinese contract? Companies WILL do that and maybe as David All reported originally, they ARE doing that. Jackalope's Voice's last blog post..Turning Civilization's Virtues Into Liabilities - The Democratic Party War Machine

By: E. M.

E. M. — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:13:20 +0000

If they did block content, exactly what would they block? Content that is ambivalent to their missions? That’s against the law in most states under anti-SLAPP. If you write something about AT&T and they don’t like it, but its in the interest of public policy, you have a lot of rights. They can’t block you altoghether — the Internet is really a goverment creation, like the highway system. Its pretty much a public forum that private companies use. You could call that a symbiotic relationship, meaning that you would have the same cause of action against a private corporation that you would against the government for restricting your freedom of speech. Hell, didn’t this article mention that someone sued an ISP for blocking content and WON? Thats proof positive that the legal system protects you from private interference, right? So why do we need the government to add another layer?

But that brings us back to the first point — if the companies were collecting information and restricting speech, what exactly are we worried about them restricting? If its speech that the government doesn’t like, then…does it really make sense to hand over control of the internet to the government?

I know, I know…the Net should remain neutral from any outside influence, corporate or governmental, and thats great, but its also crap. Big business already controls the web. Who do you use to search? Google? Google can direct you any way they want. The whole practice of SEO is designed to game the Google system and put the user in control of his or her own Google fate — that is a very poignant example of how much Google actually controls, when you have to fight like hell to make sure its not screwing you over. And its not like telecoms would CONTROL the web, like someone like Google already does. They’d only control ACCESS to the web, and even then, they’d probably just use a tiered system like your cable company already does for download speed. What is the worst they could do? Collect market information?

I just don’t see the NIGHTMARE SCENARIO coming to pass. Don’t get me wrong, I love the idea that the web remain free from governmental interference, but thats not what David is saying. He’s actively empowering the government to step in and make the rules. And, I assume, actively empowering the government to decide who they outsource to to make the rules. Google, perhaps?

The only way to ensure cheap access to the internet (and bear in mind, you already pay for internet access…its not free, even at Panera or McDonalds, where they use you as a sitting duck for marketing) is to ensure that people are allowed to compete to bring it to you.

E. M.’s last blog post..The New Yorker…Going Soft?

By: Eric Odom

Eric Odom — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:19:50 +0000

E.M., this is an angle I guess I should have commented on. My problem is that I feel this part of it comes mostly from paranoia. The companies aren’t really going to block certain content, are they? I mean, that just sounds a bit far fetched and seems like scare tactic of the left.

By: Publius

Publius — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:31:08 +0000

“I’ve tried to remain quiet on David All over the past few months, but enough is enough.”

This pretty much describes what everyone in D.C. thinks of David All but is too polite to say out loud.

He is a legend in his own mind.

By: E. M.

E. M. — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:04:33 +0000

Honestly, there are so many better solutions. The current Net Neutrality folks have little to no recognition that, if they succeed, government will step in and regulate where they disallow telecoms. That would be fantastic: government regulating speech content on the Net…or better yet, monitoring it. At least with competing telecoms, if you find that one provider is blocking access to content, you can turn around and get a different provider. Not so with government. And personally, I’d watch out as the Net stands — Google and Yahoo censor in other countries already. Who says they will never censor in America…more then they already are by refusing certain sites access to Google News and dropping their PageRank. You aren’t dealing with altruistic organizations that want nothing from the Net except to see it as a big fuzzy playground for Linux users; they’re out to protect their investment.

With the system as it is now, people like Google get to take in billions because they control everything. Why not open that up to competition from people who know what the telecom market is like? Free markets tend to improve service so long as they don’t collude — AT&T, for example, already upgrades its system routinely to keep up with demand. Compare that to say, Amtrak or the CTA, which hasn’t improved service for ten years and then is forced into expensive, complete overhauls. The free market system is better, period.

E. M.’s last blog post..The New Yorker…Going Soft?