Google Analytics


Tip Jar

Support Blog

Tip Jar

Wired State Amazon

« Was it the Devil or Anti-Psychotic Drugs that Caused the Newtown Massacre | Main | How We Know that Violent Video Games are Related to School Shootings »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


You'd do well to ignore much of what Mr. Glass has to say -- over the years I've interacted with him, at any given time, for one reason or another he directs the discussion towards some sort of malicious intent on the part of Google with the purpose of screwing him personally (he runs a wireless Internet Service Provider in Wyoming and doesn't believe in "network neutrality" or whatever you'd call it because it would hurt his bottom line (his words)). While your arguments are typically rooted in some sort of your own logic, however flawed it may be at times (my opinion at least), Mr. Glass' attacks and comments often lack any sort of logical reasoning and typically arrive at conclusions he has reached by studying the result and then assigning blame in a post hoc ergo propter hoc fashion.

You can find far better people to quote.

Catherine Fitzpatrick

Oh, nonsense, Andrew. The reason I'm quoting Brett Glass is because he points out the perfectly helpful information that many readers didn't know, and I didn't know the full story of, is how he was a) formerly of Google b) formerly of the Obama Administration c) and now on the board of Access, which is busy lobbying against all these UN agreements under cover of the human rights flag -- when really what they are doing is serving Google's bottom line.

I don't know Brett Glass, but if he turns out to run an ISP in Wyoming and he opposes "net neutrality" because it would harm his bottom line, GOOD! I agree. Indeed it will harm the bottom lines of ISPs and telecoms that will be forced to shoulder the cost of supplying *Google's customers* the burden of *supplying them their free content*. And why shouldn't they be upset at that?! It's completely normal. Google is lobbying *for* this silly communistic "net neutrality" for the sake of *its* bottom line, but doing so in despicable fashion, pretending it's for the sake of "freedom of expression" and "poor people getting broadband". That's why it's so particularly loathsome.

If Brett Glass says having the government force him to ration and force him to shoulder the burden of supplying and and all users, and that is bad and that harms his bottom line, he's honest. And he's right. And rational people don't understand why the state has to force socialism on businesses.

Meanwhile, Andrew McLaughlin and everyone else he can whipsaw on this is claiming that the government "has" to force people to "balance" a scarce resource in the name of "freedom of expression" -- which is utter bullshit. It's not about freedom of expression. It's about consumption.

It seems to me that far from committing Boys' Latin School offenses in rhetoric class as you claim, he's reasoning normally -- you're the one drinking the Silicon Valley koolaid on this.

There aren't better people to quote because most people in this business are afraid of standing up and exposing Google for what it is, a not-disinterested party that is prepared to lobby for its business interests and dress them up in whatever crowd-pleasing rhetoric they can find.

What's silly, too, is when people try to make it seem as if Brett Glass is "resisting change" because he doesn't want "new business models" or whatever the clap-trap is:

I'm all for Brett being able to control BitTorrent, which most of the time is about torrenting pirated items anyway. BitTorrent is consumption, regardless of the validity of the torrenters use of the IP it is torrenting, and more consumption should have more cost, just like any utility, like electricity. And yet we're supposed to believe in some brave new world where Google is completely disinterested (snort) and the user will get everything raw himself without intermediaries. Baloney.

What the geeks like Bob Frank want to do is put cable companies out of business because they represent old-style capitalist entities that they loathe they aren't a new-age business like Google which caters to them and is part of an ecoculture where they as consultants get paid in one way or another. But Google is just a big too-powerful corporation, too. It is no different than an AT&T that eventually had to be broken into baby bells.

And don't start up about how the government "subsidizes" telecoms. If they do more than Google (let's check), then so what? They are businesses that supply jobs and services at now fairly reasonable prices that many people can afford. If you can bail out the auto industry for far less reasons, you can leave the telecoms alone.

And that isn't because I have to cling to some "old model" of doing business. It's because Google's new model of "innovation" is merely highway robbery until the lawyers come, and that's despicable.

The worst thing about what you do, Andrew, when you make these little interventions, is you pretend I'm the kook, even if a sincere kook who comes by my reasoning honestly, and everyone else including yourself and the Silicon Valley Big IT industry are the smart people. Nonsense. There are plenty of people protesting the Google-serving socialist "net neutrality" gambit. Here's a reader on that thread that sums it up very well:

Dan says:
November 4, 2009 at 5:47 am

Net Neutrality is yet another buzz word that allows advocates to obfuscate their politics. Whether it be via licensed spectrum or installed fiber optic lines the company that owns the pipe has to be free to manage what goes through it. That is the essence of property law and it is the economic model that has proven to best align the interests of consumers with suppliers.

Either we have a system where terms of service are negotiated in the open and guided by the demands of the market or we have a system where bureaucrats and lobbyists play favorites behind closed doors. I’ll take the former approach any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Why would anyone want to subject technology development to the whims of bureaucrats?

It is really sad that a technology industry that once was the epitome of free market enterprise is now willing to soil itself by bedding down with Washington insiders. Just one more reason to expect the next technology revolution to come from someplace other than Silicon Valley.


Excellent way of describing, and nice piece of writing to get facts on the topic of my presentation subject matter, which i am going to convey in institution of higher education.|

The comments to this entry are closed.


Follow on Twitter

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter
    Blog powered by Typepad