You are here October 2009
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2009-10-27 13:25
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2009-10-27 18:51
I admire clarity of thought, and Richard Epstein's Op-ed in the Financial Times, "Net Neutrality at the Crossroads," represents some of the clearest thinking I have found on net neutrality. Please read it.
Mr. Epstein does a great job of exposing the folly beneath the vacuous sloganeering of net neutrality proponents.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2009-10-28 14:24
"How did the commission come to acquire this power?" was the core question that Ronald H. Coase asked in a seminal paper he wrote about the FCC in 1959.
- Kudos to Jeff Eisenach and Adam Theirer for an outstanding must-read article in The American, "Coase vs. the Neo-Progressives" that celebrates Mr. Coase's brilliant, ahead-of-his-time insights, and his exceptional clarity-of-thought in asking that profound question fifty years ago -- that couldn't be more appropriate to ask the FCC today.
How did the FCC acquire the power to regulate the "open Internet?
The FCC did not "acquire this power," the FCC is proposing to simply assume and assert this power by tech elite acclamation.
The term "net neutrality" slogan was first coined by Columbia Professor Tim Wu in 2002, and Google rebranded it as the "open Internet" in 2007 when Google bankrolled the creation of the Open Internet Coalition. Net neutrality was further sloganized as "the First Amendment of the Internet," as tech elites have self-deemed that an "open Internet" is an American's "right."
Obviously the FCC has not acquired "the power" to mandate net neutrality and an Open Internet.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2009-10-29 09:51
Google responded to the FCC's questions that effectively address whether or not Google Voice should be subject to the FCC's proposed net neutrality regulations.
In a nutshell, Google basically asserted that it is acceptable for a benevolent provider of free services like Google Claus to discriminate and block calls as an information service voice provider, but it is unaccceptable for profit-seeking broadband voice and information service providers to discriminate or block calls.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2009-10-30 10:52
The WSJ op-ed, "Net Neutrality: Spur to Entrepreneurship, an open network will unleash investment" is a dystopian and nonsensical assertion that it is Government that "unleashes" investment, when everyone's common sense knows that Government regulation is all about putting leashes on businesses and investment!
Competition and market forces have already unleashed $300 billion in cumulative U.S. wireless investment per CTIA!
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2009-10-30 14:17
The FCC's claims that their proposed net neutrality regulations would just "preserve" the open Internet are simply not true. The facts are clear that the FCC's proposed regulations would:
- Be a big change in FCC Internet policy;
- Implement big Internet policy changes without Congressional authorization; and
- Change the Internet in big ways.
- (The one-page PDF version of this post is here.)
The FCC’s proposed net neutrality regs are a big change in FCC Internet policy; they would:
Pages
|
