[governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality

[McTim]

On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

> McTim
>
> So you agree with Lauren that urgent regulatory action is needed to ensure
> network neutrality,
>

Urgent, no, action, well if the FCC principles, are a form of "action", then
yes.


> and that efforts to confuse this issue should be resisted.
>

yes


> Efforts at confusion like the arguments " that Internet content
> edge-caching (like that used by Akamai, Amazon, Google, and many other Web
> services) somehow violates net neutrality principles -- clearly a false
> assertion." (quoting the article you forwarded.)
>
> That to me is a great improvement on whatever I have ever heard you speak
> on network neutrality on this list :). (And i remember the precise
> 'confusing argument' of edge catching got discussed during NN discussions on
> this list.) So congrats to us, we are in a rare agreement.
>
>


This is entirely in line with what I have argued in the past.  I am abig fan
of NN, always have been, I think we just used a different definition of NN.


>
> However, what goes past me is that while i agree that when FCC is
> discussing NN, it is of no avail, and even reprehensible, for the implicated
> parties to point fingers at Google alleging another kind of anti-competitive
> practice, I cant see how Adam Raff's article can be criticized on this
> account. He mentions NN only in the passing in the opening para just to show
> that Google itself is not all smelling of roses. Also there is definitely a
> connection between NN practices and allegations about Google, both being
> anti-competitive activities.
>
>

What connection is that?


> Rest of the article has to be dealt on its own merit, not only in terms of
> muddying waters in the NN debate. That is unfair. Adam clearly supports NN
> regulation, but he has a right to go ahead and make his case against Google.
> And it is not an ordinary article - it is a NYT op-ed, and so if Google has
> something to say or refute it must issue a rejoinder.
>


http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html



>
>  Just addressing one main points of Lauren's blog in defense of Google
> which seems so shallow. It is roughly the assertion, I have often earlier
> also heard, that with one click one can switch search engines.  A powerful
> actor telling weaker dependent groups that they always have the option to
> move away is a old trick, and mostly a cruel one. I wont expand on this but
> I think everyone can understand this.
>


I certainly don't.  I have moved away from lots of search
engines/homepages/and other web services over the decades.


> Secondly, I will move away only if I knew what logic/ algorithm Google
> used, and so I can decide if it works for me or not.
>

Either it works or it doesn't.  If PageRank doesn't give you what you need,
then try Yahoo or Bing.  We, as IGC (or even CS asa whole) can't expect to
seriously ask Google to show us their patented IP, can we?  While we are at
it, why don't we insist that coca-cola publish their recipe for Coke or that
KFC tell us exactly what their secret recipe is?
\


> So can we at least ask it to publish its logic of arranging search results
> so the consumers can make a choice. It is a wrong thing to ask?
>

yes



> So what really is Lauren's blog trying to do by being so defensive about
> Google and what exactly you are agreeing  with is not clear to me.
>



I agree with the below paragraph.

>
> "Fundamentally, Google has simply provided better products, that more
> people want to use. And anyone else is free to do the same thing, at least
> as long as ISPs aren't permitted to strangle the Internet playing field via
> their total hold over Internet access to all sites!" (From Luaran's blog)
>


Happy New Year,

McTim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20091229/5f0d0a63/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance