NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: "Google in Washington"
Hello Lauren Weinstein,
This is an exemplary moderation of views that would otherwise go towards
causing harmful bias towards Google.
I get the impression that Google does more good things silently beyond
fitting into category "c) *A corporation with an unusually enlightened
management/creed and a genuine interest in both their bottom line and
the well-being of society broadly, subject to various forces and risks, and
possibilities of change in both positive and negative directions, as are
most firms*."
Narrow commercial interests are very well organized, deeply rooted in the
power circles, whereas but pro-NN groups are dispersed, relatively new to
lobbying, and what little lobbying done is more of a defense. Yet, the
genuine interests of the likes of Google has its impact against the might of
the organized lobby. This becomes intolerable to those groups.
When an opinion is echoed over and over again, 'the ordinary folks' (or 99%
of the world who don't get down to the depth of the issues) actually begin
to buy the opinion however contrary to truth it may be. This is the time
tested science of propaganda, well understood by the organized groups
against which the good efforts are powerless.
If Google's efforts are as organized as Brett Glass claims, it is not
enough. We probably need an organized NN union to match and even more
powerful defensive lobbying.
Thank you.
--
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
(posting always as an individual from India)
http://wealthyworld.blogspot.com
http://www.circleid.com/members/3601/
[ This raises a pertinent point (to paraphrase one of my favorite
characters from the original "Outer Limits" TV series). There are
various organizations and individuals active on the pro-network-
neutrality side (to the extent that there are clearly defined
sides) but their total mass, even with the inclusion of Google,
pales by comparison to the resources that the telecom industry
has been bringing to this situation. And like I said yesterday,
telecom has been playing this game a *whole* lot longer.
Frankly, it is my belief (and this is purely a belief, not
something that I can prove per se) that there has been a
conscious decision in telecom talking points to target Google as
the designated enemy in neutrality discussions. By attempting to
to portray any actions in the pro-neutrality sphere by Google as
actually being driven by ulterior motives, telecom plays into the
public's distrust of corporations in general (which predates the
current ecomomic collapse, of course). The concept of a large
commercial firm that is truly concerned about more than the
bottom line seems very foreign to most folks. Telecom is playing
their side of the battle like a well tuned violin, while the
pro-neutrality side is still using a rusty harmonica.
-- Lauren Weinstein
NNSquad Moderator ]
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Brett Glass <nnsquad@brettglass.com>wrote:
>
> [ My comments are appended -- Lauren ]
>
>
> At 10:29 PM 1/23/2009, Lauren Weinstein wrote:
>
> "Google in Washington"
>>
>> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-google24-2009jan24,0,5572738.story
>>
>
> Unfortunately, Google seems to be the unseen hand behind many organizations
> which have engaged in activism on the subject of "network neutrality." The
> LA Times article only scratches the surface and does not document even many
> of the well known relationships that Google has forged as part of its
> lobbying effort.
>
> For example, at
>
> http://www.publicknowledge.org/images/oib3-20090120.jpg
>
> we see Gigi Sohn, who is quoted in the article and is founder of the DC
> lobbying group Public Knowledge, partying on the night of the inauguration
> with Google lawyer/lobbyist Harry Wingo. (Harry, a major driving force
> behind Google's presence in DC, is a Yale Law School graduate who previously
> served as counsel to the FCC and to at least one Congressional committee.
> Google hired him as a lobbyist due to these connections.) PK claims to be a
> "public interest" group. However, Google has dispensed considerable largesse
> to groups like PK, both via direct funding and via "in-kind" contributions.
> (For example, PK will be receiving free labor from Google via its "Google
> Policy Fellowship" program, which will send paid interns to work in its
> offices at no charge to the organization.) And those groups have responded,
> in turn, by promoting Google's agenda in DC. Public Knowledge was one of the
> petitioners in the Comcast proceeding at the FCC, and Susan Crawford and
> Kevin Werbach, both members of PK's advisory board, have pushed heavily for
> Google's agenda and for "network neutrality" regulation at Congressional
> hearings, at policy conferences, and within the Obama transition team.
>
> Google is likewise a major contributor to the "Center for the Internet and
> Society" at Stanford University, whose Larry Lessig (now moving to Harvard)
> sits on the boards of Public Knowledge and Free Press and has been an active
> promoter of Google's "network neutrality" agenda. And Frannie Wellings, the
> former publicist for Free Press (another one of the petitioners in the
> Comcast proceeding which has posted emphatic defenses of Google's business
> practices on its Web sites) recently left the group to become a staffer in
> the office of North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan, which has announced that it
> will originate "network neutrality" legislation. So, there are far more
> Google connections than this article lets on. And there are doubtless far
> more of which I am as yet unaware.
>
> --Brett Glass
>
> [ I passed this item through since it is representative of many
> notes that I receive, which continually attempt to ascribe evil,
> or at least devious, motives to Google.
>
> My basic reaction to Brett's note -- assuming for the sake of the
> argument that the activities listed are true -- is SO WHAT?
>
> Sohn and Wingo were "partying" on inauguration night? BFD.
> Is this the anti-Google equivalent of Sarah Palin's "palling
> around with terrorists" accusations?
> Is Google somehow prohibited from establishing contacts in
> Washington, or lobbying within the law? The continuing efforts
> in these respects by the traditional telecom industry dwarf
> Google's activities, and Big Telecom has been at it for more than
> an order of magnitude longer than Google has existed. The entire
> structure of U.S. telecom today is a virtually direct result of
> telcom lobbying. It's completely appropriate for Google to have
> substantial input as well, as we enter critical phases of
> decision making regarding broadband policies.
>
> Google is likely one of three things:
>
> a) A near perfect, angelic force for good that can never do wrong
> and will be the savior of mankind
>
> b) An evil and/or devious power-hungry monster that only pretends
> to care about anything other than their own bottom line
>
> or
>
> c) A corporation with an unusually enlightened management/creed
> and a genuine interest in both their bottom line and the
> well-being of society broadly, subject to various forces
> and risks, and possibilities of change in both positive and
> negative directions, as are most firms.
>
> I doubt that there are very many people who seriously would
> choose (a) for any firm.
> There seem to be significant numbers of people, ranging from the
> tin hat conspiracy crowd to competitors to just ordinary folks
> who don't have enough information to make a clear judgement, who
> seem to choose (b). I think they're wrong.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, Google falls firmly into (c). They're
> not perfect, they're not magic, and it's not guaranteed that
> negative things won't happen in the future. But I have come to
> believe that their intentions are good ones. Obviously
> intentions are only one facet of a complex picture, but they're
> sure a better foundation than we see with many other firms.
>
> -- Lauren Weinstein
> NNSquad Moderator ]
>
>
>
>
>
--
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
http://twitter.com/isocchennai
http://wealthyworld.blogspot.com
http://www.circleid.com/members/3601/