Comments on: David Farber explains why Internet regulation is misguided

By: Digital Society » Blog Archive » The problem with wireless Net Neutrality

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:15:00 +0000

[...] David Farber pointed out, the difference between wired and wireless networks was so great that it initially required two [...]

By: Digital Society » Blog Archive » Podcast: Q&A on Washington Post Interview w/Vint Cerf

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:44:14 +0000

[...] Related videos and break down of David Farber interview [...]

By: Digital Society » Blog Archive » FCC NPRM ban on Paid Peering harms new innovators

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:48:07 +0000

[...] [...]

By: George Ou

George Ou — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:34:07 +0000

Brett, it is not fair to beat up Cecilia for any ads her employer the Washington Post may or may not have placed. I just looked at her blog right now and it has an AT&T ad on the Washington Post site, so you certainly wouldn’t accuse her of being an AT&T shill would you? Moreover, Cecilia was doing her job interviewing Vint Cerf (what journalist wouldn’t interview him?) and she had interviewed to David Farber as well.

When I was Editor at Large at ZDNet, I had zero control over the ads and the marketing/sales department NEVER pressured me about any vendors or told me how important it was to please a particular vendor. In fact, upper management told me about the separation between editorial and sales on day one and this is how news organizations are normally run.

By: Brett Glass

Brett Glass — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:47:46 +0000

Contrasting the sensible views of the independent Dave Farber with those of Vint Cerf (who has millions of dollars’ worth of Google Stock options) and Cecilia Kang (whose blog bears ads placed by Google) is almost unfair. The latter two are both effectively spokespeople for Google, so of course they’ll hew to Google’s regulatory agenda for the Internet.