The Wonderful-Whimsical Imagination of Free Press’ Timothy Karr
Originally published at The Daily Caller.
In what has become a sound board for Free Press, Huffington Post published an attack piece this past weekend by Timothy Karr. Karr is the front man for SaveTheInternet.com, a site run by Free Press. The site has been a continuous emotional response to the issue of Net Neutrality for the last several years, a complete and full introspective of grand potential disaster scenarios for the future of the Internet, and short on data. Karr is to Net Neutrality what Al Gore is to man-made Global Warming. Essentially, without the strong hand of the all knowing government, the Internet as we know it is doomed.
Karr’s most recent article attacking telecommunications consultant Larry Downes is what I would term “astroturf research”. Last week, CNET published an article by Downes that considers the possibility that the White House is stepping back from strict and over reaching Net Neutrality regulation. This is Downes opinion, and one that he brings evidence to the table for. We know this is his opinion because in the second paragraph of the article he states, “That’s my reading, of a number of recent developments, underscored by comments made by government speakers on a panel on the first day of a Tech Policy Summit at CES in Las Vegas.”
Downes is a journalist. And he’s doing what journalists do, observe and report, nothing more. In recent months several think tanks have advised that last Fall’s FCC Net Neutrality Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) could potentially thwart the expansion of broadband across the nation to rural areas. Specifically what are referred to as “underserved and unserved” areas of the country. The basic notion is that by restricting the methods in which network engineers can manage their networks by way of Net Neutrality regulation, the costs of running small networks in these underserved and unserved areas will increase to the point of making them financially unsustainable. Downes simple observation is that he believes the Obama Administrations priority is broadband expansion rather than Net Neutrality.
This suggestion does not mean that the FCC will relinquish its move toward Net Neutrality regulation. It’s simply suggesting that Downes believes current movements and commentary indicates that the White House may be pushing it to the back burner and asking our bureaucrats to focus on broadband expansion.
Instead of acknowledging this possibility or even providing evidence to the contrary, Karr has the audacity to attack Downes credibility. He quotes Nancy Scola of The American Prospect repeating a comment that Downes is consulting for AT&T, thus implying that he obviously can’t be unbiased in any of his reporting. On one hand there is no evidence that Downes has been contacted to see if this accusation is even true. On the other hand, what would it matter if it is true? SaveTheInternet.com and Free Press are notorious for calling out other individuals and organizations for working with or accepting donations from others that share their view on policy. But how does the not-for-profit Free Press bring in its operating budget?
“Right. Free Press takes no money from any industry groups or any members of the technology industry. We’re supposed to believe that thousands of individuals bust open their piggy banks and send the coins to Free Press’s offices … or something. Maybe a money tree Free Press grows in the garden between its unicorn pen and the jungle gym for leprechauns finance its $4 million annual budget.
It’s hard to say for sure because when you look at the group’s 990 forms to the IRS, the names of the donors are redacted. On the top of every page of contributors on Free Press’ 2007 forms is a hand-written note: “Not open to public inspection. –James G. Lakely, The Heartland Institute”
Downes currently serves as a fellow for the Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society. However, Karr chooses to try and dissect this as well commenting that, “Too many ‘scholars’ live this sort of double life – trading on academic credentials to lay a gloss of credibility over their telco-friendly arguments. It’s up to news orgs (ahem… CNET) to disclose both sides of their personalities.” It is my understanding that this comment was made from the Mount Olympus of double standards and arrogance. SaveTheInternet.com and Free Press have made no bones siding with the likes of scholars like Tim Wu, who is Chair of Free Press, and Larry Lessig, both staunch Net Neutrality regulation proponents. But they have never questioned these scholars about potential ulterior motives. Furthermore, Larry Lessig himself founded the Center for Internet and Society, and would have absolutely had a say in bringing Downes on as a fellow for the project. Are we really to believe that Lessig would have brought Downes in on a project as high profile as this at the 3rd ranked Stanford Law School if he was suspect of devious motives?
The reality of the matter is this: Free Press and its umbrella groups have online media spin down to a science, and I will be the first to admit that they are consummate professionals to a degree that only Bobby Jones could appreciate.
Free Press criticizes those that speak out against their goals for being puppets of the industry that shares that agenda. They however will not criticize those that share their opinion that receive support from the industry that promotes the Free Press agenda. Are we really to believe that industry giants like Amazon, YouTube, Google, etc, have hired no lobbyist or government relations organizations to represent them in the Net Neutrality debate? Are we really to believe these corporate giants will not benefit financially from regulation and that they are not pouring any money into the system to protect their own interests? Free Press would have us think that it is only possible to be a shill for an industry if you are opposing their view point when the fact of the matter is that Free Press is a shill themselves.
-nick
Larry Downes VS Free Press
I just had my first article published on Tucker Carlson and Derek Hunters new site venture The Daily Caller. The launch was yesterday and I think it has gone swimmingly.
The article is on a piece that Timothy Karr, the guy who runs savetheinternet.com a Free Press site, wrote that was just raunchy. Not in sort of a back alley, red light district sense, but from the unscrupulous, “you’ve got to be kidding me” sense. The piece was written to try and brush off some reporting Larry Downes had produced based on some policy perspective he had at CES, but instead of producing counter evidence to this reporting, Karr decides to attack Downes credibility. Stay classy. I’ve been reading Downes for a long time. The guy is a respected journalist and he has good things to say. That doesn’t mean he’s always right, or that I agree with him on every point he makes, it just means that if you have his portfolio it should buy you some respect to the point that just because you don’t agree with him you don’t try to throw his credentials under a bus.
This isn’t even to mention that all the people over at Free Press are socialists anyway and they should be sharing the love around.
So you can head over and see the post here. I’ll probably repost it here in a couple of days after I allow TheDC its due. Not like you are going to wait around for the posting here, but I’m just saying, for cataloging sake, it will be here eventually too.
-nick
The Guys Who “Get” Net Neutrality
Regulated Net Neutrality has always been a battle ground, but never as intense as the last few months after the introduction of the Internet Freedom and Preservation Act of 2009.? With the proposed regulation has come an onslaught of publications and marketing materials from various organizations supported by pro-neutrality organizations like Google.
The main problem we face with regulating this terminology “Net Neutrality” is that everyone has a different definition for what it is.? Net Neutrality means different things for different people.? The term itself can actually refer to many different things when we look at network management, from packet prioritization, operation of components attached to a network, site blocking, and tiered service among a few others.? The problem with this dubious definition is that when a particular individual or organization with a particular goal refers to Net Neutrality they are usually referring only to the area with which they are concerned.
It is also important to mention that in reality, the Internet will never be a neutral place, as it was not designed to do so.? Network architects like Richard Bennett whom I have referred to in the past have testified before Congress to this point.? And as I have stated in my white paper, Last-Mile Dilemma,
The Internet delivery system is not neutral, and probably never will be neutral.? It would be almost impossible to force a static service level on the entire U.S. population, much less the world.? For instance, if an individual receives an 8 megabit downstream from his ISP, and his next door neighbor surfs the web on the exact same sites but uses a 56Kbps dial-up modem, their content delivery systems are not neutral.
Neutrality of the Internet is rather the idea that individuals on differing systems of connectivity and differing speeds of delivery should still have the ability to communicate with each other without applications or locations on the Internet being blocked or the traffic purposefully slowed.? This is what Tim Berners-Lee was describing when he said, ?If I pay to connect to the Net with a certain quality of service, and you pay to connect with that or greater quality of service, then we can communicate at that level.?? This ability to communicate at any speed of content delivery with any person or Internet site and without restriction to application or content is network neutrality.? This is a network that has a particular aspect that must stay neutral in order to work in a particular manner.
The thing about all of my and others techno babble on the subject at hand is that there is no need for regulation.? Our country should not operate on “What If?” disaster scenarios.? We shouldn’t have to regulate an entire sector of our lives based on a handful of accounts of violations to our made up utopia visions of a neutral Internet.? Will individuals and corporations break this hand shake agreement from time to time?? Yes, they will.?? You’ve also probably picked your nose in public recently.? We have a socially accepted norm that is a no-no.? Do you want the government regulating this and fining you if you screw up?
Obviously that example is covered in facetiousness. ? But the fact remains that government intervention is nine times out of ten a gateway to further regulation and a deeper hand in what we are doing on the Internet.
Nobody knows what they are defending when they defend it. I mean Net Neutrality is a complex issue and when people just blindly say, “I support it or don’t support it” they really don’t know what they are saying.? I mean, Net Neutrality means different things to different constituencies.? If you’re a rural American, say, and you have one choice that is going to affect you in a different way than me in Merin County California.? I mean it sounds good on the surface because obviously keeping the Internet open is important.? But do you want the Internet regulated?? There’s lots of different components to this, and you want to protect against the edge case on making sure people have choice.? But you certainly don’t want to get down the road of having regulation on the Internet.? That would be very bad for everybody. -Jay Adelson, CEO Digg.com, This Week in Tech Podcast (min.17:12),? 8/16/2009
John C. Dvorak adds to the skepticism,
I say this partially because there is no real definition of “net neutrality.” When I see a buzzword with a nebulous definition, I suspect a ruse. Something weird going on (despite the known good intentions of the net neutrality folks).
Net neutrality became a concern when a CEO of an ISP began to make noise about Google screwing his company over somehow, and how his company might have to charge Google to even come on the network. The fact is, this guy, who will remain nameless, was an idiot. OK?
But everyone suddenly began to think of weird scenarios in which they would somehow not be able to get to their favorite sites anymore. Or, worse, some onerous ISP would take a dislike to some site and choke off bandwidth to its customers. The ISPs are perceived as political lackeys that can bend the public will by twisting connectivity in one partisan direction or another, should they so choose. Or, worse, they’ll find some way of exploiting the situation for more profits.
Does anyone think this is more likely to happen with ISPs or with the government itself? Would you rather have the FCC in control of all things online, or the ISPs?
No John, I wouldn’t.? It’s truly a scary proposition.? It’s honestly amazing to me that individuals in our country believe that the filtering of Internet content in countries like China, Venezuela, North Korea, and Cuba is an anomaly and could never happen here in America.? Why would you even want to risk giving that kind of control over to partisan governments that select partisan heads of bureaucracies?? And we aren’t even touching on the topic of how it could limit innovation and the expansion of the Internet.? Which just harps back to the earlier point of how many different things we are talking about when we say “Net Neutrality.”
PR firms disguised as think tanks are currently pushing hard.? At the forefront is FreePress.? A group heavily backed by Google.? Google wants Net Neutrality regulation because it will place burdens on entry for new comers in the Internet advertising business.? And let’s be clear on this.? Google is an advertising company, not a search company.? Additionally, some telecoms claim they will start charging Google for its web crawlers burdening their networks and sucking up bandwidth.? Something that would be prevented with the proposed legislation.
FreePress recently created a Flash animation with various telecom’s acting as puppeteer’s, pulling the strings of Congress.? The only way this animation would have been accurate is if there were a larger puppeteer labeled “Google” pulling the strings of FreePress.? And let’s be honest, I don’t even care if FreePress gets Google money.? It’s there right to do so.? But come on guys.? Demonizing telecoms sending their lobbyist to DC to try and protect their own networks that they paid for and manage off their own dime while you also lobby on behalf of Google?? Let’s call a spade a spade, ok?
FreePress didn’t stop at the telecoms though.? They jumped on every organization that opposes their position, including The Heartland Institute.? And in typical liberal fashion, FreePress didn’t argue the point at hand, they didn’t provide data or sound reason, they got all emotional about it and started attacking Heartland’s credibility, past research partners, and the transparency of their donations.? Someone should get these guys some cranberry juice.
James Lakely of The Heartland Institute points out in his latest column that FreePress is doing the same thing.? He in fact found their 990 forms and shows that FreePress redacts the names of all its contributors.? FreePress’s Timothy Karr claims that FreePress “accepts no money from industry, industry groups, political parties or government.”
Right. Free Press takes no money from any industry groups or any members of technology industry. We?re supposed to believe that thousands of individuals bust open their piggy banks and send the coins to Free Press? offices ? or something.? Maybe a money tree Free Press grows in the garden between its unicorn pen and the jungle gym for leprechauns finances its $4 million annual budget. -Lakely
Maybe Timothy Karr just meant that he personally doesn’t accept the money?? It is routed through an accounting system, so he’d be technically telling the truth.? But how’s that for transparency?? After throwing stones at glass houses it certainly says something about their arrogance though.
Three cheers for the guys that get it.? Jay Adelson.? John C. Dvorak.? Jim Lakely.
-nick
