Sam Seder calls BS on the Google/Verizon deal

Google has gone evil -- and that's not BS.
Read More......

Kevin Drum explains the Google-Verizon anti-'Net Neutrality' deal

Kevin Drum:

[T]here are real benefits to providing routine, high-speed internet infrastructure to everyone. It means that small, innovative net-based companies can compete more easily with existing giants. It means schoolchildren can get fast access to a wide variety of content, not just stuff from Microsoft and Google. It means we have a more level playing field between content providers of all kinds. Sometimes universal access is a powerful economic multiplier — think postal service and electricity and interstate highways — and universal access to a robust internet is to the 21st century what those things were to the past. If, instead of an interstate highway system, we'd spent most of our money building special toll roads for Wal-Mart and UPS, would that have been a net benefit for the country? I'd be very careful before deciding that it would have been.

For now, then, count me on the side of a purer version of net neutrality, in which the backbone infrastructure stays robust because everyone — including the big boys — has an incentive to keep it that way. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but Verizon and Google are going to have to do the persuading. And it better be pretty convincing.

Read More......

The Google-Verizon pact to destroy Net Neutrality: It's pretty bad

So much for the denials from Google.

1. Under their proposal, there would be no Net Neutrality on wireless networks -- meaning anything goes, from blocking websites and applications to pay-for-priority treatment.

2. Their proposed standard for "non-discrimination" on wired networks is so weak that actions like Comcast's widely denounced blocking of BitTorrent would be allowed.

3. The deal would let ISPs like Verizon -- instead of Internet users like you -- decide which applications deserve the best quality of service. That's not the way the Internet has ever worked,and it threatens to close the door on tomorrow's innovative applications. (If Real Player had been favored a few years ago, would we ever have gotten YouTube?)

4. The deal would allow ISPs to effectively split the Internet into "two pipes" - one of which would be reserved for "managed services," a pay-for-pay platform for content and applications. This is the proverbial toll road on the information superhighway, a fast lane reserved for the select few, while the rest of us are stuck on the cyber-equivalent of a winding dirt road.

5. The pact proposes to turn the Federal Communications Commission a toothless watchdog, left fruitlessly chasing consumer complaints but unable to make rules of its own. Instead, it would leave it up to unaccountable (and almost surely industry-controlled) third parties to deicide what the rules should be.

Read More......

Alan Grayson, liberal hero, appears to have sided with Net Neutrality foes

Huff Post:

Rep. Alan Grayson shocked his passionate followers in the progressive online community this week when he aligned himself with the telecom industry and pressured the Federal Communications Commission not to write regulations protecting the principle of net neutrality. Conservative bloggers immediately embraced Grayson, with Andrew Breitbart's Big Government mockingly offering him a "very warm welcome to the party," while reminding readers that he "is about as rabid a Leftist partisan as there is in Congress." Both Big Government and RedState.com gleefully noted that Grayson employs Matt Stoller, a former prominent blogger and leading net neutrality advocate. On Monday, Google is expected to announce a deal with Verizon that would end net neutrality and allow telecom companies to slow down particular websites and charge fees similar to cable for access to certain sites on mobile devices. (There is increasingly little difference between mobile and stationary devices.) Verizon, under the agreement being negotiated, could crush blogs, companies or political candidates by slowing down their sites.

Read More......

Google and Verizon near deal to upend Net Neutrality

UPDATE: Google denies it.

NYT:

Google and Verizon, two leading players in Internet service and content, are nearing an agreement that could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content’s creators are willing to pay for the privilege.

The charges could be paid by companies, like YouTube, owned by Google, for example, to Verizon, one of the nation’s leading Internet service providers, to ensure that its content received priority as it made its way to consumers. The agreement could eventually lead to higher charges for Internet users.

Such an agreement could overthrow a once-sacred tenet of Internet policy known as net neutrality, in which no form of content is favored over another. In its place, consumers could soon see a new, tiered system, which, like cable television, imposes higher costs for premium levels of service.

Read More......

When Politico says the Netroots matters...

Politico's Charles Mahtesian gets it right. It was a rather amazing vibe at this year's conference. It had the same energy I felt at our first conference five years ago. No, people aren't terribly excited about Congress or the administration, but rather, just a general excitement about the Netroots overall. This article accurately reflect that, I think.

In five years, the annual convention of progressive bloggers known as Netroots Nation has grown to become one of the premier events on the Democratic calendar.

It’s also turned into a leading event on the Democratic candidate circuit, a showcase of political talent and a prerequisite for aspiring politicians who are looking to catch the attention of some of the most important and influential voices on the left — and hopefully tap into the vein of Internet fundraising.

The halls of the Rio Hotel here in Sin City aren’t exactly choked with pols running for office. But it’s not uncommon to find candidates from some of the top races in the nation quietly huddling with bloggers and activists over coffee, holding small fundraisers or showing up at after-hours events where they can get acquainted with online activists who stand to have a powerful effect on their races by virtue of their blogging platforms and broad, politically-inclined readerships.

Dozens of candidates have made the rounds of this progressive meet market over the past two days, ranging from House and Senate candidates to those running for state legislature and even for the Texas state board of education.

Read More......

Anti-Net Neutrality Senators wading in anti-competition funding

How long before the Republicans apologize to AT&T; for the FCC promoting net neutrality which will help consumers? There's a great comment inside the link about the idea of politicians wearing "sponsorship patches" to highlight who gave them money. Wouldn't that be interesting to see? The "sponsorship patch" should be larger or smaller depending on the size of the contributions from particular interest groups.

Senate Republicans are attempting to promote a bill that is completely dishonest in its name. The "Freedom for Consumer Choice Act (FCC Act)" has nothing to do with protecting consumers. It's all about protecting AT&T; and other corporate powerhouses from competition. What's with the GOP and their love affair with screwing consumers? By doing so they are killing real competition which used to be a cornerstone of the US economy.

Just sayin' from TechDirt.

So, let's see. The bill's main sponsor is Senator Jim DeMint. Over the course of his career... AT&T; is the second largest contributor to his campaigns. Ditto for Senator Tom Coburn. John Cornryn no doubt knows that AT&T; is the 4th biggest contributor to his campaigns over the years, and Orrin Hatch must be happy that AT&T; is the fifth largest contributor to his campaigns over the years (amusingly, AT&T; is the only non-healthcare company in the top 8 on Hatch's list).

Read More......

China makes it official: Google license renewed

What kind of a deal was cut to allow this to happen? The Independent:

"We are very pleased that the government has renewed our ICP license and we look forward to continuing to provide web search and local products to our users in China," Google's top lawyer, David Drummond, said in a statement.

The one-sentence statement gave no details. A Google spokeswoman, Courtney Hohne, said information on what services Google will offer in China would be released in coming weeks.

There was no immediate statement on the website of China's Internet regulator, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology.

Google had to make concessions to get its license renewed, opting not to leave China completely so it could pursue its commercial ambitions — a music service, its mobile phone business, a Beijing development center and a staff to sell ads for the Chinese-language version of its U.S. search engine.

Read More......

Do you believe young people don't care about privacy?

It's an interesting debate down in Australia. With so much personal data willingly published online, it doesn't sound like a stretch to make the claim that younger people have less of an interest in personal privacy. A younger (~30 years old) colleague posts almost everything online about his life including his specific location via Google. Maybe it's the older generation who worry too much about it? What's your take?

YOUNG people do not care about their privacy and there is little reason to protect it, according to the former Victorian police commissioner Christine Nixon.

They use Twitter and Facebook, she said. They appear on Big Brother. There has been a generational shift.

''Young people don't seem to be bothered,'' she said at last night's IQ2 debate, organised by the St James Ethics Centre and sponsored by the Herald. ''These arguments about protecting people's privacy: in many cases people don't care about their privacy being protected.''

Read More......

Google expects China license to be renewed

So maybe the recent PR storm was all just PR after all. BBC:

Google boss Eric Schmidt has said he expects the internet giant to be granted a new licence to operate in China.

There had been speculation China would revoke the licence after Google began redirecting Chinese users to its unfiltered search site in Hong Kong.

This was in protest at China's stringent censorship laws.

But last month, Google said it would no longer automatically redirect users in a conciliatory move towards Beijing.

Read More......

Broadband now a legal right in Finland

This is easy enough in Helsinki but Finland is not the most densely populated country in the world. Coverage in this wide area with few inhabitants (compared to Europe or say, the East Coast in the US) makes this very interesting.

Finland has become the first country in the world to make broadband a legal right for every citizen.

From 1 July every Finn will have the right to access to a 1Mbps (megabit per second) broadband connection.

Finland has vowed to connect everyone to a 100Mbps connection by 2015.

In the UK the government has promised a minimum connection of at least 2Mbps to all homes by 2012 but has stopped short of enshrining this as a right in law.

Read More......

Is it better or worse off knowing my biases?

I remember years ago watching Ted Koppel on TV, talking to an audience about journalism. Koppel challenged the audience to guess who he voted for President. He said no one could, with any proof. I believe the implication was that this was a good thing.

I remember thinking at the time that covering national politics for so long, Koppel must have had strong political views. So why was it better for me, and better for his objectivity, for me not to know Koppel's political bias? And, switching things around, why would I, as a consumer of news, be worse off KNOWING Koppel's biases? Whether I knew them or not, he would still have them. Wouldn't more information per se better permit me to judge the news that Koppel disseminated?

Fast forward to today. We've had a brouhaha brewing all day in online politics land. Sam Stein sums up what happened, and concludes with something related to what I wrote above.

When he arrived at a party on the Huffington Post's D.C. office roof-deck on Thursday evening, Washington Post reporter/blogger David Weigel felt secure in his job. Earlier in the day, the media-focused site FishbowlDC had published a series of off-the-record emails written by Weigel in which he had disparaged members of the conservative movement that he covers.

Long story short: Weigel is gone.

Undoubtedly, there were other reporters in the newsroom there that felt the exact same way as Weigel. Their fortune had been simply not putting their thoughts in an email chain, or, simply, not having their personal emails leaked. For political observers, it was a somewhat depressing reflection of the limits of the new media universe -- where the traditional powers have not quite yet reached a level of comfort with journalists who are transparent with their biases but, nevertheless, fair and accurate in their reporting.

I was talking to some Youth in Government kids the other day about blogging, and I mentioned FOX News, and why, at its core, it's bad for America. The difference between FOX and me, at least one difference, I said, is that they call themselves Fair and Balanced. I'm a partisan blogger and admit it up front. Now, in spite of that, I certainly strive to be fair, but I never strive to be balanced. I run a Demcoratic blog. I'm not here to help Republicans. But I'm still not going to lie to pursue my goals.

FOX News isn't only here to help Republicans, they're doing it in a way that isn't fair, balanced, or even disclosed. Yet somehow FOX is "news" and Weigel is out. Huh. Read More......

Court throws out Viacom's copyright suit against YouTube

We'll have to wait for the copyright experts to weigh in, but I suspect that this is good news for YouTube fans.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has just granted YouTube’s motion for summary judgment against Viacom, meaning that the site is off the hook in Viacom’s billion-dollar copyright infringement case.

Both sides had filed motions for summary judgment in March, which is essentially a way to expedite the court case without going to a jury. YouTube had once again invoked protection under the DMCA’s Safe Harbor provisions in its filing, and the court apparently agreed.

Read More......

Utah Supreme Court validates use of e-signatures for elections

Very interesting. Read More......

Newsweek kills coolest part of its Web site

From Geek.com:

Programmers for Newsweek’s website, though, might have pulled off the best implementation of the Konami Code ever. Up until Monday, if you typed in the Konami Code on the Newsweek website, all of the front page stories would become about zombies.

The lead headline, “Zombies Attack!” was followed by an article telling readers that large portions of the East Coast had been invaded by the flesh-slavering undead. Other headlines traced the infection back to a mysterious Patient Zero or advised Newsweek readers to aim for the head.

On their part, Newsweek didn’t seem to know about it until the feature became popular. ” “Now that we’ve all had a laugh, we will be removing it,” a joyless Newsweeks spokesperson said.

I'm told this was the code - it doesn't work any more: up up down down left right left right B A enter Read More......

Starbucks to offer free wifi

i agree with those who fear that Starbucks may end up looking like a branch of the local library, full of laptops. I'm not sure how they're going to stop people from camping out there all day, and not buying more than a cup of coffee. Still, glad they're doing it. There our to be much more free wifi, worldwide, than there is to date. Going to McDonald's for free wifi just doesn't cut it. Read More......

Has the Internet made you impatient?

I don't mean to dismiss articles like this out of hand, but it seems to be the same things we heard 40 years ago about the evils of television (or, the idiot box, as mom used to call it). In the early 70s, my brother and I used to go through the TV Guide and plot out of our tv watching for the week, lest we miss anything. I'm not going to argue that I came out totally normal, but still... I just sometimes wonder if all this concern about the time we spend online isn't time we'd have spent doing something equally useless. Not to mention, for all the talk of people staying up too late to be online, when I do that, I'm often reading tomorrow's NYT, researching dog training, or searching for things I need to buy. That's hardly wasted time, and hardly akin to an alcoholic's drinking impeding on his workday. Read More......

BP purchasing prime location on leading search engine sites

For those who have had it with BP's spin, here's a bit more. Who really believes this is BP trying to make it easy for those impacted by the disaster? Probably the same people that thought BP had all of the answers. Read More......

AT&T; to cut off unlimited Internet to new iPhone users

Apple, please get rid of these people. Read More......

GOP uses public money for Internet site to collect 'new ideas'

What a bunch of complete frauds who insist on sponging off of taxpayer dollars yet again. Doesn't the free market work? Is this really a good use of public money during an economic crisis? Remember this the next time they start crying about the lack of money to fund whatever project they don't like.

Republicans by law cannot use the americaspeakingout.com website for political purposes, since they established it with taxpayer money.

Representative Kevin McCarthy, who is in charge of the effort, said it would not cost much more than an average website for a congressional office.

Using the information gained, Republicans hope to develop legislative priorities for Congress based on their conservative principles by September, two months before the November 2 elections. Boehner said an agenda for congressional candidates is being developed on a separate track.

Read More......