You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-06-07 18:20
FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell gave an outstanding speech today at the Broadband Policy Summit in which he did the single best job I have seen totally debunking the OECD rankings that purportedly indicate the US is falling behind on broadband.
Commissioner McDowell explains with example after example -- how skewed the OECD methodology is.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-05-31 18:51
Reed Hundt is up to his old "managed-competition" tricks again.
It is highly relevant that Frontline is financially backed by big Google investor/Board members
; their involvement was probably orchestrated by Google Senior advisor Al Gore, Hundt's political benefactor in the Clinton-Gore Administration.
- True to form in this new venture, Mr. Hundt has never met a marketplace that he didn't think he could personally "manage" better than the free market can.
The FCC should be very very careful in following this policy charmer's latest government intervention advice on the 700 MHz auction, because he has been personally responsible for most all of the largest wild goose chases that the FCC has been involved in over the last few decades.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-05-31 11:59
Bloomberg reports that Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards "backs Google's push for wholesale leasing of airwaves."
Let's cut to the chase here.
Google has proposed a self-serving idea for real-time auctions of spectrum that might be able work in five to ten years time, but is not at all relevant to, or practical for, the auction scheduled for next winter.
Google's idea is really a clever diversion and stalking horse for wireless net neutrality -- a sweet-sounding name for government-subsidized free spectrum or "corporate welfare for dotcom billionaires."
More importantly, Google's proposal would effectively undermine the FCC's ability to raise the maximum amount in the upcoming 700 MHz auction for American taxpayers.
Presidential candidate Edwards appears more interested in pandering to powerful Democratic special interests and fundraisers that can contribute to his lagging campaign, than being a good steward of taxpayer money.
And who might those special interests be that Mr. Edwards is pandering to?
Google, whose employees in the last election cycle contributed 98% to Democratic candidates;
Al Gore, Google's senior Advisor, (who is now seriously rich, but quietly so, from his Google options) and who is ringleader of "Google's Poodles"
Google's very own astroturf group the "Open Internet Coalition." and
Former Clinton-Gore FCC Chairman, Reed Hundt, Chairman of Frontline spectrum company, funded in part by Google-related money, which is seeking to rig the upcoming FCC spectrum auction for their own commercial benefit under the guise of an "open Internet."
Don't be fooled by the clever diversions surrounding the FCC's upcoming 700 MHz auction.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-05-31 10:02
Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee was reported on a blog to have "supported" net neutrality in a conference call with bloggers.
Don't believe this is his "official" policy position for a minute.
When conservative Mike Huckabee learns both sides of this issue and is not blindsided on a conference call on a subject he was unfamiliar with, and which was then grossly mispresented, I am convinced he will not "support" net neutrality.
No legitimate economic conservative like Mike Huckabee, who wants to radically downsize the Federal Government, will support a Big Government program to regulate the Internet for the first time.
He clearly was not at all familiar with the issue nor that nearly all the biggest funding supporters of net neutrality are liberal groups like Moveon.org who believe in digital socialism and radically reducing intellectual property rights on the web.
When Mike Huckabee's campaign staff research this issue, (we recommend they read the one pagers at the top right hand side of the www.NetCompetition.org
website) there is no way he will support net neutrality as part of his official campaign.
It would be totally inconguous with his other limited Government views.
The last thing conservative Mr. Huckabee would want is to put the current "free and open" Internet under Government control.
Not gonna happen.
This is another in a long line of supposed "endorsements" of net neutrality that result from NN proponents consistent misrepresentation of the facts and gross use of unsubstantiated allegations of a problem.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-05-25 18:40
Senate Democrats are attempting to sneak through the back door what they cannot get through the front door of the "free and open" policy process.
The Inouye "Broadband Data Improvement Act" is really a long term trojan horse for net neutrality and heavy regulation of broadband.
The clever ruse in this innocuous-sounding language is to redefine broadband competition as a total abject failure, and to declare broadband market failure, so the pro-regulatory types can regulate broadband becuase it is not competitive, or is at best a future duopoly.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-05-22 13:57
SaveTheInternet and net neutrality proponents are losing their populist message discipline, and starting to show their true philosphical colors in blatantly calling for what is effectively "digital socialism."
Andrew Rasiej, the founder of The Personal Democracy Forum, challenged Presidential candidates to become the next "Tech President" in a recent blogpost. It's important to note that his views are mainstream in the net neutrality movement as evidenced by the hearty endorsement they received by SaveTheInternet and by Wired Magazine Blog.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-05-18 11:05
I personally think the Markey proposal to spend $36 million for a "national broadband map" is a monumental waste of taxpayer money and really bad "policy".
- We don't have even a "national" broadband problem, we have more broadband facilities based competition and investment than any nation in the world.
- We may have a rural broadband lag, and if a map is needed at all it could only be justified for rural areas and it would only cost a fraction of the $36m.
- If Chairman Markey proposed a rural broadband map I would be much more muted in my criticism.
However, there is a not so hidden agenda lurking here.
A "national" broadband map is a transparent political scheme to re-define the issue so pro-regulation and pro-net neutrality proponents can define away "competition" and current policy success with a stroke of a pen.
If they can define away satellite and the 5 national wireless providers as broadband competitors, they can smugly say "I told you so" broadband is really a monopoly/duopoly and declare competition policy a failure!
Then they could have a policy basis for mandating net regulation, subsidies and net neutrality!
The reason they want a national broadband policy is that they want a one-size-fits-all national policy like net neutrality which ensures everyone gets the same broadband service regardless of different needs, wants or means.
It still amazes me how Chairman Markey and his fellow Big Government/net neutrality proponents can not see that competition and not regulating the Internet has been a fabulous, albeit imperfect success for the United States.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-05-16 15:47
I attended the Educause conference panel today because they made a big deal about how they were going to launch a new white paper with a new compromise on net neutrality that would be "more reasonable."
- When I arrived and asked about the availablity of the new net neutrality white paper, I was disappointed when informed it was "delayed indefinitely."
- Seems like this white paper is in the same purgatory of indecision, and "keystone kops-ville", that the relaunch of the online giant coalition is, the former ItsOurNet coalition which is reportedly now the "Open Net Coalition".
- Seems like the net neutrality movement is going through a whole lot of handwringing about what to do next.
- It kind of reminds me of when a barking dog finally catches the passing car. Now what to do?
I was also amused that Educause, this academic oriented forum, did not even attempt to present a balanced panel that represented both points of view on net neutrality.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-05-16 14:06
I just rewatched the outstanding Fiber to the Home Council's video on the Internet Exaflood.
I blogged about it before and will probably blog about it again in the future, because it is the best single five minute explanation, for novices and experts, of how the Internet is changing and improving.
If SaveTheInternet and FreePress was truly interested in a free and open debate on net neutrality they would want to send this outstanding informational video out to their email blast list.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-05-14 13:10
I was shaking my head in disbelief when I read Comm Daily on Reed Hundt's interview on CSPAN's The Communicators series.
"Hundt is vice chmn. of Frontline Wireless and he used his C-span appearance to challenge the FCC to set rules that will allow Frontline to carry out its business plan."
"The wireless industry, which largely grew from auctions held while Hundt was Chairman, has become too consolidated, he said: "Monopolies don't work that hard to compete." Competition is necessary for innovation."
Excuse me? wireless monopolies?