Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2006-08-07 16:10
The FCC wireless broadband auction starting this week is a showcase of how far pro-competition and de-regulation policy has come, and conversely how far the neutrality-ites have their head in the sand about the real competitive broadband situation.
This FCC spectrum auction is all about enabling new and/or better major competitive alternatives to the 4-9 competitive alternatives that exist now:
i.e. the new players: DBS Wireless/DirecTV-Echostar; Cable Wireless/Comcast-TimeWarner-Cox; and T-Mobile; and
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2006-08-04 10:48
Google, Yahoo, eBay, and Microsoft continue to try and hide how much the average American subsidizes their market-leading 80-90% gross profit margins.
Net neutrality is a dressed up name for a regulated average-pricing sheme. Under NN, below-average bandwidth users, the vast majority of Americans, pay much higher broadband prices in order to subsidize the average price that bandwidth hogs pay -- and bandwidth hogs make up a relatively small percentage of Internet users.
What Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, eBay, Amazon don't want anyone to know or figure out is that they are among the largest consumers of bandwidth in the country, and they pay a relatively minscule amount for it. It's certainly easier to be so super profitable if they can sucker everyone into paying their bills for them.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2006-08-04 10:48
Google, Yahoo, eBay, and Microsoft continue to try and hide how much the average American subsidizes their market-leading 80-90% gross profit margins.
Net neutrality is a dressed up name for a regulated average-pricing sheme. Under NN, below-average bandwidth users, the vast majority of Americans, pay much higher broadband prices in order to subsidize the average price that bandwidth hogs pay -- and bandwidth hogs make up a relatively small percentage of Internet users.
What Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, eBay, Amazon don't want anyone to know or figure out is that they are among the largest consumers of bandwidth in the country, and they pay a relatively minscule amount for it. It's certainly easier to be so super profitable if they can sucker everyone into paying their bills for them.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2006-08-04 10:12
Where are the neutrality-ites on net neutrality for broadband over powerlines (BPL)? The FCC just updated some of its BPL rules and is expected to complete the rest shortly. If NN is so important a principle that Snowe-Dorgan applies NN to ALL broadband technologies whether they have market power or NOT -- like new entrant -- BPL, why is there no attention to the imminent FCC ruling that BPL is an unregulated info service -- meaning not subject to NN? Don't neutrality-ites think that some of their supported might consider utilities -- like common carriers? Or that some might think they are either hypocritical or incompetent because they are not standing up for NN on BPL?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2006-08-03 16:01
I thought neutrality-ites believed it is urgent for Congress to pass NN legislation to overrule the FCC's currently operative ruling that DSL is an unregulated information service. On SavetheInternet.org website it says: "If Congress doesn't take action now to implement meaningful Net Neutrality provisions, the future of the Internet is at risk." I tsournet.org's website says: "If Congress does not put these protections back soon, it could be a lot harder to reach your church or school, your local businesses or online communities that you care about."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2006-08-02 10:50
I continue to be amazed that the neutrality-ites are unwilling to quote AT&T Chairman Whitacre's CURRENT statements on NN. But that would require them to be forthright and that would undermine their cause...
At NARUC, the state regulators conference, Whitacre said according to Communications Daily today, that: "We're not going to block anybody, but we want to offer the right to offer something better. Some companies want us to be a big dumb pipe that keeps getting bigger and bigger for free."
Neutrality-ites love to quote only a 2005 Business Week article to get people riled up, but they conveniently and selectively ignore all the official remarks the AT&T Chairman has made about NN since, which have made crystal clear AT&T has no desire to block or degrade anyone, but that it certainly wants to invest in a better faster Internet and get compensated for that value added service.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2006-08-01 14:59
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2006-08-01 12:19
An inconvenient truth for those neutrality-ites alleging a broadband duopoly is found o n page 4, of the FCC's Broadband competition report, is the following quote:
"The most widely reported technologies by this measure [availability by zip code], were satellite (with at least some presence reported in 88% of zip codes. This compares favorably to DSL which is reported in 82% of zip codes and cable modems which is reported in 57% of zip codes."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2006-08-01 11:57
As I flagged in my blog post on the FCC broadband competition report last week, mobile wireless broadband is growing hyper fast, so fast that over one out of three new high-speed additions, is not DSL or cable, but wireless broadband.
Yesterday, Verizon in its quarterly earnings report added more information supporting the fast growth of this increasingly competitive alternative. Verizon reported that in the last year, it has added 10 million new broadband-capable wireless devices, laptop aircards, EVDo enabled Treos and Blackberries. By any measure this is very fast growth and proves the competitive dynamism of the broadband marketplace, and undermines calls for net neutrality that claim insufficient competition.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2006-07-31 12:47
VA Senate Democratic candidate, Jim Webb, recently endorsed NN. The text of his statement, which could easily have been drafted verbatim by moveon.org -- is included below.
I ask Mr. Webb whether anyone has explained to him the "Reverse Robin Hood" effect of NN before he endorsed NN? Does Mr. Webb understand that NN is average-pricing and one-size fits- all offerings?
Average pricing means that lower-than-average bandwidth users, like pensioners on fixed incomes, must pay above-average prices for bandwidth to subsidize more well -off high-end bandwidth users? How does such a special interest gift, corporate welfare for the online giants, square with traditional Democratic values of really looking out for the "little guy?"
Pages
|
