Posted on 07/26/2010 9:46:29 AM PDT by Andrea19
...On the one front, Google is heading a major coalition lobbying for so-called "Net Neutrality" rules to regulate the Internet for the first time in history. The effort would essentially turn private Internet service providers (ISPs) into public utilities, by giving the Federal Communications Commission vague authority to dictate how ISPs manage their networks that comprise the Internet. A win would solidify Google’s powerful place in the market while undercutting ISPs; it would give Google permission to continue “free-riding” across ISPs networks with the government’s blessing.
Yet, Google now finds itself in the unusual position of fighting back against the government on two fronts. First, Google is pushing back against the Federal Trade Commission’s absurd project on the “Reinvention of Journalism.” A draft paper from the FTC last month suggested $35 billion in higher taxes to expand public media and undercut private news outlets. Amidst this proposal was a tax on news aggregator websites, such as Google News and the Drudge Report. Google fired back with a letter to the FTC stating: “Regulatory proposals that undermine the functioning of healthy marketplaces and stall the pace of change are not the solution.” If that’s Google’s principled position, then they should probably abandon their push to regulate the Internet.
Additionally, last week a group of 38 state Attorneys General began a joint investigation into how Google’s Street View cars collected personal information from unsecured wireless networks. Though it has yet to be shown if Google actually violated the law, a letter from the AGs contains detailed and biting questions...
Read more: http://www.atr.org/googles-government-conundrum-a5248#ixzz0uo6VwjPH
(Excerpt) Read more at atr.org ...
Help promote Conservative activism here & here & here & here
I wonder about Googles shadow though (NSA).
Bull$hit
I pay for that final mile and while Google may very well deserve derision among conservatives Comcast is the spawn of Satan
Just assume they know everything and you will be fine.
Have you checked out Google ChurchTM?
Since “Google” does not have a sound or even good record in countries which suppress their people the best thing one can say is,
‘The road to hell is paved with good intentions’
On the other hand the truth is “Google” is just another player looking out for themselves at the expense of the same rules which allow them to operate freely, yet will submit to questionable activities Governments; where is EFF when you need them?
It isn’t the final mile that is being talked about here, but rather the peer-to-peer internet inter-ties at the top of the internet. Google searches and other services subsume a pretty good chuck of primary internet connectivity (though likely not rivaling spam and porn ;-) THIS is where the real battle lines are drawn.
The tier-1 internet providers want to charge Google and other heavy user websites for providing the bandwidth they consume. The end user of the data is already paying for this inter-connectivity bandwidth which is something that most involved in the argument forget. (Maybe this is where your final mile comment does come into play.)
Big Brother Google..... =.=
Wow, Google’s religious standing has a large following; another insecure clinger holding on to power and position.
Even found one religious spinoff which has divined Google’s 10 Commandments:
http://www.seopedia.org/funny-stuff/the-church-of-google/
Thanks.You have just made me realize, I might be an agooglist . If google didn't exist some nerd would invent it, and cash in just like many organized religions. If there is an eternal error 404, I hope they burn there for an eternity.
>> If there is an eternal error 404, I hope they burn there for an eternity.
+1
But go easy on nerds, ‘kay? I R 1.
ROFLMAO!
I thought I was *kidding*!
Bumper stickers are easy, reasoned argument is a little more difficult.
As the article points out, "Reinvention of Journalism" and "Street View" info collection both involve government involvement into extending the type of privileges and liabilities to ISPs and Web companies that "Net Neutrality" would formalize. Thus, these three issues seem initmately intertwined and even self-reinforcing, depending on the position of any particular Web company. Conflict of interest is therefore not only obvious, but inescapable for Google in particular, especially since Google has taken such a definitive (and marketshare-protcting) stance on Net Neutrality.
Google is attempting to maintain the status quo in all three cases. The fact that - in one case - they're allied with the government, and in the other two, they're at odds, really isn't newsworthy or unique.
God knows there are better reasons to hate those jerks at Google.
“Golden Rule of the Internet (Net Neutrality)”
Pro-Google propaganda alert!!! Lets be fair to everyone reading FreeRepublic and state for the record: GOOGLE is a miserable example and arbiter of fairness on the Internet. They don’t believe in the “Golden Rule” either.
Case in point, the EU is looking at enforcing “Search Neutrality” rules against Google. The EU has determined that Google regularly picks winners and losers, and creates search results to promote their own self interests, which is an anti-competitive behavior.
In addition to punishing Google for their admitted crimes of collecting and using WIFI data packets without legal authority or user permission, the EU will begin regulating how the Google monopoly serves up its search results.
“Pro-Google propaganda alert!!! “
What on Earth are you talking about?
Net Neutrality is an effort to boost Google’s revenues! It is assuredly not the “Golden Rule” of the Internet as some claim!
The bottom line is, if you love the internet as it is today, you love net neutrality.
Furthermore, Google's desire to have net neutrality codified through the FCC (which I would rather not see happen) is an attempt to AVOID losses in revenue and AVOID new charges they've never had to pay. It is not an attempt to ENHANCE their bottom line. For them, it's a matter of maintaining the status quo: they do not want to have to pay Comcast a fee if you watch a video at YouTube...nor do they want you to have to pay Comcast to watch that video because then, you're less likely to go to YouTube.
Avoiding something new is not an enhancement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.