Google’s Open Double Standard: Fact-Checking Google’s Treatise on “The meaning of open”

-By Scott Cleland

Google posted its treatise on “The meaning of open” designed to redefine the word “open” in Google’s image. It is an important read because it is a bay window view into the altruistic way that Google yearns for the world to perceive it.

Like most all of Google’s PR, however, Google’s Treatise on “The meaning of open” may be “the truth” as Google sees it, but it is certainly not “the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

I. Google’s Open Double Standard

Simply, Google is for “open” wherever it does not have a monopoly or dominant market position, however where it does, as in AdWords, AdSense and search advertising syndication, it is closed, to ensure that its dominance remains impregnable to competitors.
Continue reading


Google’s Open Double Standard: Fact-Checking Google’s Treatise on “The meaning of open””


Critical Gaps in FCC’s Proposed Open Internet Regulations

-By Scott Cleland

Like the FCC’s National Broadband Plan task force identified seven critical gaps in the path to the future of universal broadband, the FCC should resolve six identified “critical gaps” in the FCC’s proposed open Internet regulations before moving forward to regulate the Internet for the first time — by dictating Internet access pricing, terms and conditions or dictating what services which businesses can and cannot offer on the Internet.

Here are six critical gaps in the FCC’s proposed open Internet regulations:

Credibility Gap: The FCC isn’t “preserving,” but changing the Internet by regulating it for the first time.
Continue reading


Critical Gaps in FCC’s Proposed Open Internet Regulations”


Is FCC Declaring ‘Open Season’ on Internet Freedom?

-By Scott Cleland

The FCC, in proposing to change the definition of an “open Internet” from competition-driven to government-driven is setting a very dangerous precedent, that it is acceptable for countries to preemptively regulate the Internet for what might happen in the future, even if they lack the legitimacy of constitutional or legal authority to do so, or even if there is the thinnest of justification or evidence to support it.

How can we ever hope to influence China, Iran and other undemocratic regimes to provide more Internet access and freedom to their citizens and businesses when our FCC is proposing a radical take back of existing Internet freedoms without legitimate authority or justification?

The grave mistake the FCC is making in the broader international context is claiming that private companies are the primary threat to Internet freedom and free speech, and not governments. History and common sense tell us only Governments have the effective coercive power to dictate real censorship.

The FCC is effectively declaring “open season” on well-established Internet freedoms.
Continue reading


Is FCC Declaring ‘Open Season’ on Internet Freedom?”


Why Google Is Not Neutral

-By Scott Cleland

After discussing whether Google should buy The New York Times, Google decided against it because it “would damage its ‘neutral’ identity,” per Ken Auletta’s just-published book “Googled: The End of The World as We know It.”

Google has long claimed to be neutral. Their corporate philosophy statement claims: “We never manipulate rankings to put our partners higher in our search results and no one can buy better PageRank. Our users trust our objectivity and no short-term gain could ever justify breaching that trust.”

As the world-leading corporate proponent of an industrial policy to mandate net neutrality for all its potential broadband competitors in cloud computing, and as the beneficiary of “The Google Loophole” in the FCC’s proposed open Internet regulations (para 104), it is fair to stress test whether Google’s claim of a “neutral’ identity is true or just cleverly-executed PR.

Is Google Neutral?
Continue reading


Why Google Is Not Neutral”


How FCC Regulation Would Change the Internet

-By Scott Cleland

The FCC’s claims that their proposed net neutrality regulations would just “preserve” the open Internet are simply not true. The facts clearly state that the FCC’s proposed regulations would: Be a big change in FCC Internet policy; Implement big Internet policy changes without Congressional authorization; and Change the Internet in big ways. (The one-page PDF version of this post is here)

The FCC’s proposed net neutrality regs are a big change in FCC Internet policy; they would:

  • Replace the FCC’s voluntary net neutrality guidelines with mandated net neutrality regulations;
  • Selectively apply net neutrality regulations to only broadband and not to applications/content providers like the current principles do;
  • Add two completely new net neutrality principles that are not found in law or congressional policy:
  • Mandate the strictest non-discrimination requirement in the last 75 years;
  • Mandate public disclosure of detailed proprietary network management techniques for the first time;
  • Expand application of net neutrality to wireless and satellite broadband for the very first time;
  • Expand consumers access to content entitlement by adding entitlement to send/distribute content as well;
  • Redefine entitlement to competition in the current fourth principle, to favor resale competition over facilities-based competition;
  • Subject broadband companies to a new “Mother-may-I” FCC approval process for offering new managed services and for experimenting with new business models; and
  • Subordinate private standard-setting bodies, like the IETF, to new FCC omni-technical oversight/approval.

Continue reading


How FCC Regulation Would Change the Internet”