As one of the founders of the SavetheInternet.com coalition that Richard so inaccurately refers to here, I can confirm that this isn’t true. Bennett routinely spreads conspiratorial broadsides across the Internet. He then posts challenges like “it’s a fact and you can look it up” to spread a smokescreen over his lies. He then launches ad-hominum attacks at the people who call him out for dishonesty.

Here’s just one example that you REALLY can look up.

I’m worried about mandating net neutrality spiralling into never ending lawsuits. I’m also worried about telecom companies ganging together to charge preferential pricing to content companies above and beyond basic access pricing. Overall, these problems have been solved many times by competition, and this time should be no different. Companies that are doing crappy things will get a brown sandwich served to them over time as they lose customers and share (see @Home, etc).

More regulation isn’t the answer, but paying strict attention to who is doing good things and who is doing bad thigns, and sending your business to the good guys, is the best way to handle it. It’s hard, but we should just try to ensure that the telecom firms don’t get the pendulum swung their way either.

The telcos need to focus on carrying bits. If they don’t think they’re making enough money they can try rasing the price of carrying bits and I’ll decide how that price stacks up against other providers. But when they try to extort money from Google and Amazon, it’s not the bits they want money for – they want money for access to ME. As far as I concerned, it’s exactly the same as if I had a butler taking kickbacks from the tradesmen.

Oh, that’s really significant, isn’t it?

Look, I’d have more respect for Moveon if they were taking money from Google than I do now that I know they’re doing Google’s dirty work for free.

Join me in promoting “Seach Neutrality”, the future of the Internet depends on it.

McCurry repeats the same tired, false, and silly points over and over again. He’s both a liar and an idiot, and yes, he doesn’t understand the details of how the Internet is put together.

Tiered service criminalizes network engineering and protects the telecos monopoly. In order to compete with the telecos, an upstart search company would need a build a private network with the size and scope of the one Google runs, shadowing the Internet. Net Neutrality is much cheaper way to do this and that’s why the Telecos want to steal the internet from the public.

Rounding out a trifecta of errors, the tabloid says MoveOn is funneling Google “Net Neutrality money” into a Senate race in Pennsylvania. That rumor isn’t just paranoid – it doesn’t even point at the right organization. MoveOn.org Civic Action, which is pushing Net Neutrality, is a separate organization from MoveOn.org Political Action, which does more political work”

From Eli Pariser- is Executive Director of MoveOn.org Political Action and interim Executive Director of MoveOn.org Civic Action.

Newmark repeats the same tired, false, and silly points over and over again. He’s both a liar and an idiot, and yes, he doesn’t understand the details of how the Internet is put together.

Net neutrality criminalizes network engineering and protects Google’s search monopoly. In order to compete with Google today, an upstart search company would need a build a private network with the size and scope of the one Google runs, shadowing the Internet but not regulated. Buying better service from the ISPs is a much cheaper way to do this and that’s why Google wants tiering banned.

I have new cause, “Search Neutrality”. Google’s search results are not random, and I think they should be. Help me pass a law mandating random search results so the Internet can be a “level playing field.”

You’re spreading false rumors, please stop (re your move on, google slop you posted on your blog and here).

We should instead believe what Mike McCurry (who is on the telco payroll) tells us. That makes much more sense.