

S_engineer

Premium Member

join:2007-05-16

Chicago, IL 1 edit S_engineer Premium Member And who said Google could do no wrong! Why the F*** would anyone in Washington even consider a "framework" proposed by 2 companies that would stand to gain the most?



Why not have Citibank write our financial regulatory reform?



Maybe Humana could rewrite the Healthcare bill!



This is so pathetic



vpoko

Premium Member

join:2003-07-03

Boston, MA 1 edit 1 recommendation vpoko Premium Member Re: And who said Google could do no wrong! said by S_engineer:



Why the F*** would anyone in Washington even consider a "framework" proposed by 2 companies that would stand to gain the most?



Why not have Citibank write our financial regulatory reform?

Why the F*** would anyone in Washington even consider a "framework" proposed by 2 companies that would stand to gain the most?Why not have Citibank write our financial regulatory reform?



As for why? How much money do you intend to spend lobbying for network neutrality. Now how much money will Google and Verizon spend working against it?



I've always been amused with people who thought Google (or Apple) were somehow different from any other company. I hate to break it to you, but one of the reasons for our recent little financial meltdown was exactly because financial companies, regulators, and congress were in bed together.As for why? How much money do you intend to spend lobbying for network neutrality. Now how much money will Google and Verizon spend working against it?I've always been amused with people who thought Google (or Apple) were somehow different from any other company.



S_engineer

Premium Member

join:2007-05-16

Chicago, IL S_engineer Premium Member Re: And who said Google could do no wrong! No...its because Congress along with the regulators failed to do their job. Its a given that the financial companies are out for massive profits, but when you have people like Chris Cox sleeping at the wheel of the SEC, and Congressional oversight committees too stupid to understand that the house was caving in, then you have a big problem.

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22 3 edits 1 recommendation amigo_boy Member Re: And who said Google could do no wrong! said by S_engineer:



No...its because Congress along with the regulators failed to do their job.

No...its because Congress along with the regulators failed to do their job.



She was squashed by Greenspan, Rubin and Summers. Congress proceeded to pass legislation in 1999 to prohibit states from regulating Credit Default Swaps as insurance (requiring capital reserves). That was a Republican Congress, and a Democrat President.



For what it's worth:



• Greenspan retired just before the train wreck, appearing before congress admitting his libertarian worldview had been proven wrong.

• Rubin, appointed by Democrat President Clinton, went on to lead Citibank -- one of the largest recipients of bailout money. And, considered among the least capable to repay.

• Summers became President Obama's financial adviser.



"A good time was had by all."



You're definitely right that the regulatory agencies could have done a better job with the tools they had. But, there's no doubt that those tools were limited by legislation (influenced by the financial industry). That culture of deregulation influenced the agencies and their application of the tools they had.[2]



[1] The story can be watched here:



[2] Read the massive book, You're partially correct. That was one factor. But, "vpoko" is very correct. Just look at the effort to regulate derivatives in 1997. The commissioner of the futures and commodities agency was squashed like a bug when she raised concerns about the opacity of derivatives.[1] She predicted they would be our undoing.She was squashed by Greenspan, Rubin and Summers. Congress proceeded to pass legislation in 1999 to prohibit states from regulating Credit Default Swaps as insurance (requiring capital reserves). That was a Republican Congress, and a Democrat President.For what it's worth:• Greenspan retired just before the train wreck, appearing before congress admitting his libertarian worldview had been proven wrong.• Rubin, appointed by Democrat President Clinton, went on to lead Citibank -- one of the largest recipients of bailout money. And, considered among the least capable to repay.• Summers became President Obama's financial adviser."A good time was had by all."You're definitely right that the regulatory agencies could have done a better job with the tools they had. But, there's no doubt that those tools were limited by legislation (influenced by the financial industry). That culture of deregulation influenced the agencies and their application of the tools they had.[2][1] The story can be watched here: PBS Frontline: The Warning . Click the link to watch the full program online.[2] Read the massive book, Too Big To Fail , which documents the hour-by-hour interactions of industry insiders and regulators during the meltdown. Particularly Treasury Secretary Paulson's near-visceral reaction to SEC Secretary Cox's blatant capitulation of his regulatory tools when they were needed most. A true eye-opener.

Core0000

Premium Member

join:2008-05-04

Somerset, KY Core0000 Premium Member Re: And who said Google could do no wrong! ...I never knew Alan Greenspan had a "Libertarian worldview"...



Anyways, did you recall all of what you said from memory or is it because you read those books recently?



IF its from memory I am feeling really bad right now. V_V'

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22 2 edits amigo_boy Member Re: And who said Google could do no wrong! said by Core0000:



...I never knew Alan Greenspan had a "Libertarian worldview"...

...I never knew Alan Greenspan had a "Libertarian worldview"...



Therefore, it's not difficult to understand what he meant when testifying before Congress after the economic collapse, saying he was wrong about how "free markets could regulate themselves without government oversight." Or, "I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms,"[3].



Those who've been involved with libertarianism know that he was touching the Article of Faith. Consensual relationships. The non-coercion principle which drips from Ayn Rand's writings.



I believe Greenspan was a genius. But, when you listen to him, it sounds like he could talk around anything. He was so motivated by libertarian ideology that he would talk in circles to avoid reality interfering with his worldview.



For example: quote: Dogmatic market capitalists hailed the trend, none more enthusiastically than Greenspan. He claimed, implausibly, that a lack of margin requirements would "promote the safety and soundness of broker-dealers, by permitting more financing alternatives and, hence, more effective liquidity management." In the week before LTCM imploded, he told Congress, "Market pricing and counterparty surveillance can be expected to do most of the job of sustaining safety and soundness." And, in 2003, he told an investment conference: "Critics of derivatives often raise the specter of the failure of one dealer imposing debilitating loses on its ounterparties, including other dealiers, yielding a chain of defaults. However, derivative markets participants seem keenly aware of the counterparty credit risks associated with derivatives and take various measures to mitigate those risks." This is the same Greenspan who told Congress that the Fed had to intervene in the LTCM crisis, because: "Had the failure of LTCM triggered seizing up of markets, substantial damage could have been inflicted on many market participants, including some not directly involved with the firm, and could have potentially impaired the economies of many nations, including our own." In other words, counterparty surveillance works fine, so long as you're willing to accept the occasional crash of "the economies of the nations." But given the enormous rewards that accrue to top-of-the-food-chain players like LTCM partners, true market-believers may find that a cheap enough price.[4]

That's the "worldview" which he ended up saying had been proven wrong. It's easy to deregulate everything, resulting in a massive party. Just because the party lasts for 10-20 years doesn't mean a hangover isn't coming.



Greenspan's pre-crash reasoning was like the person driving without brakes on the interstate. "I've gone 200 miles without needing any brakes!" -- frantically explaining away the pile-ups he drove past. When Greenspan testified before Congress, he looked exactly as you'd expect of such a driver. Feeling a bit foolish? Humbled? said by Core0000:



Anyways, did you recall all of what you said from memory or is it because you read those books recently? Anyways, did you recall all of what you said from memory or is it because you read those books recently?



[1] »



[2] »



[3] »

»www.bloomberg.com/apps/n ··· h9Up4rIg



See also, the last 5 minutes of the Frontline video, supra note 1.



[4] The Frontline video[1] gives a brief introduction to Greenspan's libertarian beliefs and his association with Ayn Rand (who was his guest at the White House when sworn in as Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to President Ford). He described himself as a "lifelong libertarian Republican."[2]Therefore, it's not difficult to understand what he meant when testifying before Congress after the economic collapse, saying he was wrong about how "free markets could regulate themselves without government oversight." Or, "I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms,"[3].Those who've been involved with libertarianism know that he was touchingArticle of Faith. Consensual relationships. The non-coercion principle which drips from Ayn Rand's writings.I believe Greenspan was a genius. But, when you listen to him, it sounds like he could talk around anything. He was so motivated by libertarian ideology that he would talk in circles to avoid reality interfering with his worldview.For example:That's the "worldview" which he ended up saying had been proven wrong. It's easy to deregulate everything, resulting in a massive party. Just because the party lasts for 10-20 years doesn't mean a hangover isn't coming.Greenspan's pre-crash reasoning was like the person driving without brakes on the interstate. "I've gone 200 miles without needing any brakes!" -- frantically explaining away the pile-ups he drove past. When Greenspan testified before Congress, he looked exactly as you'd expect of such a driver. Feeling a bit foolish? Humbled?I read a lot. I write notes to support my memory.[1] » www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/f ··· warning/ [2] » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al ··· f_office [3] » current.com/groups/money ··· rong.htm See also, the last 5 minutes of the Frontline video, supra note 1.[4] Two Trillion Dollar Meltdown , Chapter 3.



Walt French

@pacbell.net Walt French to Core0000

Anon to Core0000

from Wikipedia: Greenspan describes himself as a lifelong libertarian Republican.



Wikipedia's cite is the front page of the WSJ from 2007. I'll accept the accuracy. Why question it?

your moderator at work hidden :



vpoko

Premium Member

join:2003-07-03

Boston, MA vpoko to S_engineer

Premium Member to S_engineer

said by S_engineer:



No...its because Congress along with the regulators failed to do their job. Its a given that the financial companies are out for massive profits, but when you have people like Chris Cox sleeping at the wheel of the SEC, and Congressional oversight committees too stupid to understand that the house was caving in, then you have a big problem.

No...its because Congress along with the regulators failed to do their job. Its a given that the financial companies are out for massive profits, but when you have people like Chris Cox sleeping at the wheel of the SEC, and Congressional oversight committees too stupid to understand that the house was caving in, then you have a big problem. They weren't stupid, they were complicit.



S_engineer

Premium Member

join:2007-05-16

Chicago, IL S_engineer Premium Member Re: And who said Google could do no wrong! You gentlemen missed my point. If the FCC has to outsource to these companies for a "framework" of policy that the FCC itself is responsible for writing, then we either need to purge the FCC or abolish it. Now I can understand input, but in no way shape or form should the FCC be taking marching orders from Google or Verizon.

Now as far as the economy goes, there were many, many contributing factors. From Greenspans "cheap money" tenure, to the Graham-Leach-Bliley act. And don't forget Amigo, it was Rubin along with Greenspan who opposed giving the CFTC any oversight of the over the counter credit derivatives. But if it makes you feel any better, Rubin received approx $50,000,000.00 in compensation in 2008 instead of the appropriate sentence he deserved.

WhatNow

Premium Member

join:2009-05-06

Charlotte, NC WhatNow Premium Member Re: And who said Google could do no wrong! That is the problem they broke no law. They got their gold and have more then they spend in a life time. If you lost your job that is just how the economy works. The crowd at the top gets paid for success or failure. The one in the middle just lose everything for the mistakes at the top. How many times do you hear their contract says we have to pay them. If we don't give them bonuses they will go to the competition but those living from paycheck to pay check get laid off with sorry we don't have any money to pay you. Why because the idiots at the top got your paycheck.

The Board of Directors have no incentive to fix the problem because they have to protect each other so they will get their bonuses.



The Democrats may not have the answer and can make their own big mess but if they had been in charge as long as the Republicans there may not have been the Massey Coal Mine explosion or the BP oil spill. If you want to live in a Latin America economy of the very rich and no Middle Class keep voting for the free market Republicans. There is not free market for the middle class and below. If you think you are going to make more then $200 thousand for the next few years vote you pocket book vote Republican if not who do you think is going to pay for the no deficit budget. It will not be the those that get a bonus bigger then most people make in their regular pay.

I don't have any problem with someone making money but when you get paid a bonus after you risk taking blew up then something is wrong. Let's see how many heads at the top of BP lose their job because the tried to save money on the the Gulf well. So far the only people that have suffered are those that live along the coast and small time BP share holders.

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22 amigo_boy Member Re: And who said Google could do no wrong! said by WhatNow:



The Board of Directors have no incentive to fix the problem because they have to protect each other so they will get their bonuses. The Board of Directors have no incentive to fix the problem because they have to protect each other so they will get their bonuses.



Today, millions of workers buy indexed funds (400 to 2000 companies in one mutual fund). No regard to the company they are buying, or its ethics. And, unlike the guy who bought IBM forty years ago, these millions of workers (buying hundreds of companies) can't vote for the Board. Even if they could research 400-2000 companies, purchasers of shares in a mutual fund aren't considered the owner of shares in the underlying company. The fund manager is.



The bottom line is, corporations are more easily capitalized today, with less accountability to the people doing the capitalization. Worrying less about shareholder reaction, certainly must have contributed to the fact that CEO pay increased from 33 times the average workers' pay in 1978 to 300 times in 2000. said by WhatNow:



If you want to live in a Latin America economy of the very rich and no Middle Class keep voting for the free market Republicans. There is not free market for the middle class and below.

If you want to live in a Latin America economy of the very rich and no Middle Class keep voting for the free market Republicans. There is not free market for the middle class and below.



50 years ago they were more the party for the "working man." Since then, they've confused "the underdog" with marginalization (transvestites, illegal immigration). Not the mainstream, such as the middle class watching their jobs offshored in the interest of "free markets." I think that has a lot to do with how stock ownership has changed. Forty years ago people bought IBM to hold it for the rest of their life. And, it was very few people because the stock market was considered risky (with the Great Depression still in people's minds).Today, millions of workers buy indexed funds (400 to 2000 companies in one mutual fund). No regard to the company they are buying, or its ethics. And, unlike the guy who bought IBM forty years ago, these millions of workers (buying hundreds of companies) can't vote for the Board. Even if they could research 400-2000 companies, purchasers of shares in a mutual fund aren't considered the owner of shares in the underlying company. The fund manager is.The bottom line is, corporations are more easily capitalized today, with less accountability to the people doing the capitalization. Worrying less about shareholder reaction, certainly must have contributed to the fact that CEO pay increased from 33 times the average workers' pay in 1978 to 300 times in 2000.I agree with your generalization. IMO, the problem with Ds is they get on board with every looney, marginal bandwagon that comes along. If they had been in control the past 20 years, we'd have National Transvestite Day, prohibition of gun ownership, and dozens of programs rewarding juvenile delinquency.50 years ago they were more the party for the "working man." Since then, they've confused "the underdog" with marginalization (transvestites, illegal immigration). Not the mainstream, such as the middle class watching their jobs offshored in the interest of "free markets."



KrK

Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy

Premium Member

join:2000-01-17

Tulsa, OK Netgear WNDR3700v2

Zoom 5341J

1 recommendation KrK to S_engineer

Premium Member to S_engineer

said by S_engineer:



Why the F*** would anyone in Washington even consider a "framework" proposed by 2 companies that would stand to gain the most? Why the F*** would anyone in Washington even consider a "framework" proposed by 2 companies that would stand to gain the most? Why not have Citibank write our financial regulatory reform? I'm pretty sure they had a large hand in it..... Maybe Humana could rewrite the Healthcare bill! They don't need to re-write it. They already got most everything they wanted.... This is so pathetic

No argument here! Um. That's how it's done these days!I'm pretty sure they had a large hand in it.....They don't need to re-write it. They already got most everything they wanted....No argument here!



DrModem

Trust Your Doctor

Premium Member

join:2006-10-19

USA 1 recommendation DrModem to S_engineer

Premium Member to S_engineer

said by S_engineer:



Why not have Citibank write our financial regulatory reform?



Maybe Humana could rewrite the Healthcare bill!

Why not have Citibank write our financial regulatory reform?Maybe Humana could rewrite the Healthcare bill!



They did.



*cough* *cough*They did.*cough*



jaa

Premium Member

join:2000-06-13 ·Optimum Online

jaa to S_engineer

Premium Member to S_engineer

said by S_engineer:



Why the F*** would anyone in Washington even consider a "framework" proposed by 2 companies that would stand to gain the most?

Why the F*** would anyone in Washington even consider a "framework" proposed by 2 companies that would stand to gain the most? Perhaps for campaign contributions?

WhatNow

Premium Member

join:2009-05-06

Charlotte, NC WhatNow Premium Member Re: And who said Google could do no wrong! Who has the money to contribute to a political campaign? Big Business it is now their Free Speech Right to give as much as the want. When they shut down your Department see how much money went to political campaigns so the top can keep their big bonuses coming in.

If you are politician that would like to do the right thing the Big Business Lobby will find and FUND a candidate to do their bidding.



INsano

@clearwire-wmx.net INsano to S_engineer

Anon to S_engineer

To ease public angst about drilling for oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, Bush "conceded" to appoint a committee to investigate the effects of drilling. Bush appointed Cheney to be the head of it. Cheney, the former Halliburton CEO.



It happens all the time.



FLATLINE

join:2007-02-27

Buffalo, NY FLATLINE Member I would expect this from Verizon but... Google Cmon! I jumped on board with your search engine because your not supposed to be Evil and the engine delivered the results I needed. I jumped into my first Smartphone and went with Android because it was all about freedom. Maybe its time you learn a lesson and that lesson is...



The Consumer Giveth, The Consumer Taketh Away!



Murdoc49

Premium Member

join:2009-02-08

Manitowoc, WI Murdoc49 Premium Member Got too big huh google? you just sealed your fate google.



RiseAbove

Premium Member

join:2004-01-30 RiseAbove Premium Member Re: Got too big huh google? said by Murdoc49:



you just sealed your fate google.

you just sealed your fate google. Yep I was a big supporter of all things google but if they back Verizon and want the Net to be focused on their profits above everyones ability to surf the web I will ditch them in a heart beat and make it my soul mission to make sure everyone moves away from their services.



Karl Bode

News Guy

join:2000-03-02 Karl Bode News Guy Re: Funny, seems like yesterday that Well, that's why I generally support small business.



When they're little, they're interested in things like innovation and making the consumer happy (if they're any good). At a certain point the game becomes about pleasing myopic, impatient and frequently clueless (in context) investors, or turf protection.



Guess which side of that equation Google is headed for?

Antonlm

join:2004-09-15

Birmingham, AL Antonlm Member Re: Funny, seems like yesterday that +1. the writing is on the wall.

Mr Matt

join:2008-01-29

Eustis, FL Mr Matt Member Telephone monopoly to competition Communications Act of 1934 See this article in Wikipedia:



»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fe ··· _of_1934



One forgets that access to the Internet was made available by private businesses. I am aware of this because I was hired by a Dial Up Internet Service Provider in early 1996. I got in on the ground floor. At the time anyone could become an Dial Up ISP by leasing a circuit to the Internet and leasing a number of incoming lines connected to a modem pool. Unless the Internet Business is regulated, these private businesses can do anything they like. During the dial up days competition kept ISP's in line. If an ISP pissed off a customer the customer could sign up with a different ISP. These days most customers have at most three broadband ISP's to choose from and in many cases one or two. Under these circumstances there is no competitive pressure to keep ISP's treating customers fairly. The only way to solve this problem is to regulate ISP's like the government did with the telephone industry with the Communications Act of 1934. See this article in Wikipedia:One forgets that access to the Internet was made available by private businesses. I am aware of this because I was hired by a Dial Up Internet Service Provider in early 1996. I got in on the ground floor. At the time anyone could become an Dial Up ISP by leasing a circuit to the Internet and leasing a number of incoming lines connected to a modem pool. Unless the Internet Business is regulated, these private businesses can do anything they like. During the dial up days competition kept ISP's in line. If an ISP pissed off a customer the customer could sign up with a different ISP. These days most customers have at most three broadband ISP's to choose from and in many cases one or two. Under these circumstances there is no competitive pressure to keep ISP's treating customers fairly. The only way to solve this problem is to regulate ISP's like the government did with the telephone industry with the Communications Act of 1934.

MTU

Premium Member

join:2005-02-15

San Luis Obispo, CA 2 edits 1 recommendation MTU Premium Member HoneyPot - time to walk away I use Google services. Free and so sweet. Like reality, we need to face the fact that a price is being extracted for the neat, free stuff. That old adage about 'selling your soul' comes to mind. Time to consider walking away from the Internet drum beat. I realize that the 70's was forever-ago, but it wasn't all that bad. If the Internet disappeared in a puff of blue smoke there'd be whines from the ignorant, pissed-off advertisers, and maybe, just maybe we'd have a return to real journalism and discussion beyond blog-shots. Just imagine.

BitHacker

join:2007-02-01

Sterling, MA BitHacker Member Re: HoneyPot - time to walk away said by MTU:



I use Google services. Free and so sweet. Like reality, we need to face the fact that a price is being extracted for the neat, free stuff. That old adage about 'selling your soul' comes to mind. Time to consider walking away from the Internet drum beat. I realize that the 70's was forever-ago, but it wasn't all that bad. If the Internet disappeared in a puff of blue smoke there'd be whines from the ignorant, pissed-off advertisers, and maybe, just maybe we'd have a return to real journalism and discussion beyond blog-shots. Just imagine.

I use Google services. Free and so sweet. Like reality, we need to face the fact that a price is being extracted for the neat, free stuff. That old adage about 'selling your soul' comes to mind. Time to consider walking away from the Internet drum beat. I realize that the 70's was forever-ago, but it wasn't all that bad. If the Internet disappeared in a puff of blue smoke there'd be whines from the ignorant, pissed-off advertisers, and maybe, just maybe we'd have a return to real journalism and discussion beyond blog-shots. Just imagine. It isn't the Internet that is the problem and getting rid of it will not suddenly fix the worlds problems (it would probably make the world a much worse place). It's the lobbyists/politicians that are causing the problems. I think you would see more improvements if they disappeared in a flash of blue smoke (or maybe gun powder smoke...).

MTU

Premium Member

join:2005-02-15

San Luis Obispo, CA MTU Premium Member Re: HoneyPot I am not opposed to the Internet, and in fact make a living using the 'net. You're on-target regarding the negative influence from corporate forces and the weak/corrupted legislators.



I was trying to think of an appropriate analogy for what the Internet was & could be vs. what it is becoming. In short, the web is turning into a Jeepney.



Do a Google image search.



jaa

Premium Member

join:2000-06-13 ·Optimum Online

jaa to MTU

Premium Member to MTU

said by MTU:



I realize that the 70's was forever-ago, but it wasn't all that bad. If the Internet disappeared in a puff of blue smoke there'd be whines from the ignorant, pissed-off advertisers, and maybe, just maybe we'd have a return to real journalism and discussion beyond blog-shots. Just imagine.

I realize that the 70's was forever-ago, but it wasn't all that bad. If the Internet disappeared in a puff of blue smoke there'd be whines from the ignorant, pissed-off advertisers, and maybe, just maybe we'd have a return to real journalism and discussion beyond blog-shots. Just imagine. Why not get rid of TV at the same time? Radio? Cars? Telephone? Electrcity?

mori8

join:2004-06-18

Mays Landing, NJ mori8 Member knew it! i knew this was gonna happend , as soon as google let out that they were making a google phone, then they say google browser, after all this now its a google OS for pc



and people dont see how much they starting to look like a post MS before they were force somehow to behave a lil better.



wait ,, i bet u google will one day say they wanna do a google home console,,,



like MS before them,, they trying to get they hands into everything, so far they doing it like a drug dealer.



given us good free software, and then pulling our pants down later on for the second dose.

gorehound

join:2009-06-19

Portland, ME gorehound Member Re: knew it! and i am getting sicker and sicker at big corporations as well as the broken government system we have.

maybe we need a new political party ?

i do not want to vote for republicans nor democrats.we need someone who has not been corrupted by the dark side of DC.



Ryokucha

join:2000-10-20

Ormond Beach, FL Ryokucha Member Re: knew it! I don't like what big corporations do, but at the same time I do not blame them in situations like this. I blame the people we put in charge to regulate them, and to protect us the consumers. A businesses main goal is to make money, and find the best way to maximize profits with the minimalist of investment. Spending millions on lobbying for toothless rules and regulations that will save or make them billions is good investment on their part, and is actually considered good business practice.



If Congress wanted they could control these mega-corps by having real laws and regulations. There really is nothing to stop them from doing so, besides the fact that they know where their bread is buttered. We elect these people to protect our best interest, not the interest of their "campaign contributors".



Just because a congressman or senator is lobbied by one of these companies does not mean they have to feel pressured into voting or sponsoring one of these companies toothless bills. They do so because if they do vote or sponsor one of these bills they make more "campaign contributions".



I think it is common knowledge by now that once elected into office, these people are already working on their next election. Which means they have to from day one start to follow the money trail, which means they need to find a few mega-corps to basically sponsor them. I am surprised that it hasn't turned into a NASCAR type of situation where these congressmen and senators have to wear corporate logos full time. All in due time I guess.

WhatNow

Premium Member

join:2009-05-06

Charlotte, NC WhatNow Premium Member Re: knew it! The Republicans on the Supreme Court just made it their Right of Free Speech to put more butter on politician's bread. The Big Companies will now just buy a candidate and run ads that make the good candidates look like idiots but have little money to counter the Big Biz ads.

bus7821

join:2003-08-07

San Pedro, CA bus7821 Member Re: knew it! Unions buy candidates, too. Just look at the city of Los Angeles to see how well that works out.

SuperWISP

join:2007-04-17

Laramie, WY SuperWISP Member Google is just hedging its bets. The buzzphrase "network neutrality" has never had any agreed-upon definition. In practice, it simply means whatever the speaker hopes to accomplish by imposing onerous regulations upon ISPs. In Google's case, there are several ways that it can protect its multiple Internet monopolies (Internet search, Internet search advertising, Internet banner advertising, Internet video) by regulating ISPs, and thus several "definitions" that would be acceptable to it.



In this case, Google is being crafty and hedging its bets. Its internal lobbyists are pushing for one definition in negotiations with Verizon (and was also doing so in the closed door meetings at the FCC), while Google's external lobbying groups (Public Knowledge, Free Press, New America, Future of Music Coalition, Open Internet Coalition) are pushing for another which pretends to be more "idealistic" but in reality accomplishes the same thing: protecting Google's monopoly positions and locking out new competition. These "astroturf" groups claim that because they are taking a very slightly different stance than Google's internal lobbyists, they're opposing Google and therefore are not working for it. (The money trails, of course, demonstrate otherwise.) Good cop, bad cop.



If either definition prevails, and "network neutrality" legislation or regulations are passed, Google wins. And the public is harmed by higher broadband prices, fewer choices of Internet providers, lower quality of service, slower deployment, less innovation, and (of course) being forced to deal with Google's monopolies.



The only way the PUBLIC wins is if no "network neutrality" regulation of any form happens. It's not necessary. The Internet has survived for 27 years without it and is still going strong -- despite the doomsaying of Google's lobbyists.



Com6

@comcast.net Com6 Anon Google So Google changed their mind about NN? I thought they were on our side (consumers)?



mattn

@comcast.net mattn Anon Re: Google No, they're on their side. They have always been. They are ust very good at spinning whatever they do as if they do it for the benefit of anyone other than themselves. Maybe with this action the scales will fall from people's eyes, but I suspect it will take more than this event for that to happen.



David232

@bezeqint.net David232 Anon T Be Clear: We shouldn't jump to conclusions. I wish people would withhold judgment until we know all the details.

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24

Cleveland, OH sonicmerlin Member Re: T Be Clear: We shouldn't jump to conclusions. said by David232 :



I wish people would withhold judgment until we know all the details.

I agree. I don't know why, but Karl seems to jump on Google whenever the chance arrives. We don't really know the cause for Google's actions. It could be that they saw the writing on the wall: a weak-willed FCC and a corporate-influenced Congress pushing the FCC to satisfy corporate interests, and decided to bury a stake in the dirt before things became too bad. Heck maybe they were hoping to encourage public outrage with a backroom negotiation. I realize right now it seems suspicious, but without further information you can't really tell what was going on at Google headquarters. I agree. I don't know why, but Karl seems to jump on Google whenever the chance arrives. We don't really know the cause for Google's actions. It could be that they saw the writing on the wall: a weak-willed FCC and a corporate-influenced Congress pushing the FCC to satisfy corporate interests, and decided to bury a stake in the dirt before things became too bad. Heck maybe they were hoping to encourage public outrage with a backroom negotiation. I realize right now it seems suspicious, but without further information you can't really tell what was going on at Google headquarters.



Andre R

@comcast.net Andre R Anon Yet another wake-up call Here's yet another wake-up call for the hordes of Google-worshipping zombies out there who talk about the company in glowing terms and fawn over ever word uttered by Eric Schmidt. This is not only a large company, it's one of the biggest marketing and advertising corporations on the planet, bigger and more powerful than anything that sector has ever seen. That shouldn't inspire fanboy-ism. That should inspire constant vigilance.



Everyone keeps talking about Google like it could someday become the next Microsoft (in terms of bullying and anti-competitive behavior) but I'm of the firm opinion that they already are and are using their fans as a way to hide behind this altruistic, freedom-loving image they've crafted. And fans of the company seem frighteningly willing to explain away the company's growing number of gaffes, and instead point their fingers at Apple and Steve Jobs as the ultimate form of corporate evil. Apple has a lot of problems but I'll take the devil I know for the one I don't know any day of the week.

old_wiz_60

join:2005-06-03

Bedford, MA old_wiz_60 Member If it goes to congress... it is obvious that whichever group contributes the most money to the congress people will get what they want. This is the proper functioning of a plutocracy, which has replaced democracy in the U.S.



Walt French

@pacbell.net Walt French Anon Lucrative Android Relationship ??? It's clear the search giant is now willing to shelve their previous principles in order to protect their lucrative Android relationship with Verizon.



Please excuse my noobiness, but could you spell this out?



I've always presumed that Google recognized that they were proxy combatants against Apple to help Verizon win the larger war of resisting the smartphone revolution  keeping any manufacturer or software shop or anybody else besides the carrier from gaining too much power  and specifically the carriers' delay-to-death a net-neutral future where carriers would be dumb pipes that would work ever so much better than their little fiefdoms that are optimized for nickel-and-dollaring us to death.



Google's first choice would be that All traffic went thru Google OS, where they could price ads as high as they wanted because there'd be no alternative. They're working on that. Second choice is that Apple doesn't get there, as it appeared they might, and Google has hit a milestone on that. Also important is that not all the traffic goes thru Verizon or AT&T, since then the carriers would monetize all the traffic to their tastes. That's a bit more out of Google's hands, so they are working on several fronts.



As of yet, the market has evolved only enough for Google to collect ordinary high profits, not yet to start collecting monopoly rents. If they push their luck the carriers will all promote WinPhone7 and Bing (as AT&T has already signaled), as the carriers have always played the different manufacturers against one another. Just now, they have to consider the OS/software stack, too.



So I've thought Google was still in Phase II of their plan: that they would keep all the US carriers within neat little boundaries, so that the carriers couldn't treat Google the way that the cable companies treat the content providers (as either carrion, to be bought for pennies, or as easy target for leeching off by threatening to take Disney or Fox off the air right before Superbowl, etc.). Google needs the wireless companies to not get too big/uppity, which is why they made their foray into buying spectrum. Shot across the bow and all that, although the carriers seemingly have made it clear that nobody is gonna mess with their ownership of the US airwaves.



JKM

join:2009-06-08

Seymour, MO JKM Member Google In my opinion, Google has long been preaching neutrality and working to gain more control of the internet. I guess they have just flown under the radar. I personally see them as a necessary evil, likened to a politician. I would rather not have anything to do with them but haven't figured out how to make that work.



ArrayList

DevOps

Premium Member

join:2005-03-19

Mullica Hill, NJ ArrayList Premium Member hmm until i see specifics about what they are proposing I cannot form an opinion one way or the other.



PowerPoint presentation style would be nice.



FastiBook

join:2003-01-08

Newtown, PA FastiBook Member Google.... Google is creepy.



- A

russotto

join:2000-10-05

West Orange, NJ russotto Member Clear? Official? How can anything be "clear" or "official" when it's based on the word of one anonymous source?