Fight! Fight!

The Wall Street Journal pits McCurry against Craig Newmark over net neutrality and Craig wipes the floor with that company-line spewing spin machine. Says Craig:

I realize you’re cleverly using Colbertian “truthiness,” and I just can’t compete with that. Nerds are notoriously literal.

What we’re looking for is just fairness, a level playing field, no regulation or stuff like that. In America we believe that if you play fair and work hard, you get ahead. We don’t want the government to give special privileges to the big guys, particularly not at the expense of small business and consumers. We don’t want more regulation and we don’t need lawyers involved where the free market functions well. I guess we’re for capitalism.

Current net neutrality (as currently conceived) functions well, allowing innovators to create wealth and help us all out. Why should the FCC or Congress fool with that? We’ve seen that the telecoms don’t need more privileges, they need to get serious about using their existing resources….

Even Mike’s clients have confessed that they intend to discriminate. They consistently forget who owns the airwaves and public rights of way on which they’ve built their fortunes. They frequently break their commitments…

Net neutrality is the embodiment of American values of democracy and fairness. Let’s keep it that way. I joined the SavetheInternet.com coalition and signed a petition to Congress. Mike, you talk about preserving competition; when can we expect you to sign up?

  • http://bennett.com/blog Richard Bennett

    Newmark is obviously an idiot whose intellect doesn’t rise above the level of spewing slogans that have been spoon-fed to him by Google’s spinmeisters. He’s also a liar, claiming to want market solutions while demanding FCC control over routing algorithms. Like Weinberger and Isenberg, he’s an embarrassment to the Internet.

  • http://billkosloskymd.typepad.com/wirelessdoc/ Bill K.

    “Free” does not mean the “best deal” when choice is eliminated. Being able to stream Desperate Housewives for free is not something that interests me. Yes, it’s easy to conflate “free” as in free beer with “free” as in freedom of choice. It’s like arguing the open source movement all over again.

  • http://chadwilliams.blogspot.com chad

    Yes Richard, you’re 100% right, Craig Newmark is OBVIOUSLY an idiot who knows _nothing_ about the internet.

    We should instead believe what Mike McCurry (who is on the telco payroll) tells us. That makes much more sense.

  • james

    Uh Richard, you might want to get your facts straight about google, etc.

    You’re spreading false rumors, please stop (re your move on, google slop you posted on your blog and here).

  • Jeb

    Richard Bennett is obviously an idiot whose intellect doesn’t rise above the level of spewing slogans that have been spoon-fed to him. He’s also a liar, claiming to want market solutions while shilling for giant telecos who will shut out all competition and turn the internet into a strip mall full of corporate brands. Like James Watt and Mike McCurry, he’s an embarrassment to humanity.

  • http://bennett.com/blog Richard Bennett

    Google paid Moveon $1 million to create a grass-roots movement protecting their interests, James, it’s a fact and you can look it up.

    Newmark repeats the same tired, false, and silly points over and over again. He’s both a liar and an idiot, and yes, he doesn’t understand the details of how the Internet is put together.

    Net neutrality criminalizes network engineering and protects Google’s search monopoly. In order to compete with Google today, an upstart search company would need a build a private network with the size and scope of the one Google runs, shadowing the Internet but not regulated. Buying better service from the ISPs is a much cheaper way to do this and that’s why Google wants tiering banned.

    I have new cause, “Search Neutrality”. Google’s search results are not random, and I think they should be. Help me pass a law mandating random search results so the Internet can be a “level playing field.”

  • james

    “Internet freedom opponents told one right-wing tabloid (the American Spectator- home of richard mellon scaife)) that “Google has become the single largest private corporate underwriter of MoveOn.” That’s news to us since MoveOn has never received a cent from Google – or any other big business. We’re funded by the small dollar contributions of 3.3 million members.
    Equally absurd, “sources” told the tabloid that “Some of that money has gone to an online petition drive and a letter-writing campaign.” That may be AT&T’s fantasy world – but right now, online activities that allow regular citizens to be participants in their democracy cost advocacy groups almost nothing. And that’s a good thing.

    Rounding out a trifecta of errors, the tabloid says MoveOn is funneling Google “Net Neutrality money” into a Senate race in Pennsylvania. That rumor isn’t just paranoid – it doesn’t even point at the right organization. MoveOn.org Civic Action, which is pushing Net Neutrality, is a separate organization from MoveOn.org Political Action, which does more political work”

    From Eli Pariser- is Executive Director of MoveOn.org Political Action and interim Executive Director of MoveOn.org Civic Action.

  • Jeb

    AT&T, Verizon, etc. paid over $1 million to create an astroturf movement protecting their interests, it’s a fact and you can look it up.

    McCurry repeats the same tired, false, and silly points over and over again. He’s both a liar and an idiot, and yes, he doesn’t understand the details of how the Internet is put together.

    Tiered service criminalizes network engineering and protects the telecos monopoly. In order to compete with the telecos, an upstart search company would need a build a private network with the size and scope of the one Google runs, shadowing the Internet. Net Neutrality is much cheaper way to do this and that’s why the Telecos want to steal the internet from the public.

  • http://bennett.com/blog Richard Bennett

    “MoveOn.org Civic Action, which is pushing Net Neutrality, is a separate organization from MoveOn.org Political Action, which does more political work”

    Oh, that’s really significant, isn’t it?

    Look, I’d have more respect for Moveon if they were taking money from Google than I do now that I know they’re doing Google’s dirty work for free.

    Join me in promoting “Seach Neutrality”, the future of the Internet depends on it.

  • Jeb

    No, Richard, they’re doing my work for free. They are protecting me. I gave them $25 once, BTW.

  • http://bennett.com/blog Richard Bennett

    Moveon is protecting Google’s monopoly by attempting to ban network engineering. Net neutrality freaks are the Amish of the Internet.

  • Jeb

    Poor Richard, he can’t start his own Google so he’s a WATB and has to call everyone else names. He wants to be a billionaire but Google won’t let him. Whaaaa.

  • http://none almazul

    Dare I, a woman, weigh in on this testoterone-driven, techy, insider argument…? I’ll just say I got a good chuckle out of Jeb’s response…Oh yeah, and I support “free” as in free of corporate-interest-control…oops! guess that excludes the entire Bush administration!

  • Hunter McDaniel

    I happen to be conservative, but that doesn’t mean anytime liberals support something that I have to dutifully march over to the other trench. I happen to think net neutrality is a core principle that has fueled an explosion of innovation and democracy, and I don’t want the telcos f*****g it up. If moveon happens to agree with me this once, so be it – the issue is hotly contested and we need all the help we can get. As for Google they’re not saints but in this case my interests coincide with theirs.

    The telcos need to focus on carrying bits. If they don’t think they’re making enough money they can try rasing the price of carrying bits and I’ll decide how that price stacks up against other providers. But when they try to extort money from Google and Amazon, it’s not the bits they want money for – they want money for access to ME. As far as I concerned, it’s exactly the same as if I had a butler taking kickbacks from the tradesmen.

  • hey

    Jebus, internet architecture debates were bad enough when it was just geeks arguing over the specs and the only money at stake was on the part of the router companies. Now that all sorts of very big businesses are getting involved and so many people who don’t know the guts of POTS, PSTN, the layer system, etc are shouting about the issues makes this difficult to comprehend. And I’m an engineer with lots of experience on the hardware and business side of the telecom and data networks.

    I’m worried about mandating net neutrality spiralling into never ending lawsuits. I’m also worried about telecom companies ganging together to charge preferential pricing to content companies above and beyond basic access pricing. Overall, these problems have been solved many times by competition, and this time should be no different. Companies that are doing crappy things will get a brown sandwich served to them over time as they lose customers and share (see @Home, etc).

    More regulation isn’t the answer, but paying strict attention to who is doing good things and who is doing bad thigns, and sending your business to the good guys, is the best way to handle it. It’s hard, but we should just try to ensure that the telecom firms don’t get the pendulum swung their way either.

  • http://www.savetheinternet.com Tim Karr

    Richard Bennett: “Google paid Moveon $1 million to create a grass-roots movement protecting their interests, James, it’s a fact and you can look it up.”

    As one of the founders of the SavetheInternet.com coalition that Richard so inaccurately refers to here, I can confirm that this isn’t true. Bennett routinely spreads conspiratorial broadsides across the Internet. He then posts challenges like “it’s a fact and you can look it up” to spread a smokescreen over his lies. He then launches ad-hominum attacks at the people who call him out for dishonesty.

    Here’s just one example that you REALLY can look up.