The data and evidence show that broadband is not a public utility warranting economic regulation of prices, terms and conditions; this is contrary to the assertions of net neutrality proponents: the Markey-Eshoo Bill, FreePress, the Open Internet Coalition, and Google's Internet Evangelist Vint Cerf, among others.

Why is broadband not a public utility? 

First, it is a competitive service, not a natural monopoly service.

A public utility presumes "natural monopoly" economics where economies of scale and scope preclude the possibility of competitive facilities/services. 

• The roughly $200b in private risk capital invested in financially-successful U.S. competitive broadband facilities over the last several years is incontrovertible evidence that broadband does not enjoy natural monopoly economics.

Second, users have choice of access providers.

FreePress launched another effort to discredit my views and those of others in a new "Unmasking Astroturf" campaign where they called me the "Astro-turfer-in-chief."

I have some questions for FreePress on "astro-turfing." 

1.  How is it "Astro-turfing" when I am fully disclosed and routinely communicate NetCompetition.org is a pro-competition e-forum funded by broadband interests? 

It is not news that I work for company interests or that I philosophically believe, like broadband companies do, that competition is better for consumers and the economy than government regulation.

Apparently FreePress is concerned that they may have over-reached and may have contributed to a less-than-helpful lose-lose dynamic in pushing so hard for counter-productive net neutrality regulations to be part of the guidelines for the $7.2b broadband economic stimulus grants.

FreePress is pushing their friends in media, to characterize the competitive broadband providers as bad guys for not volunteering to be subject to the new regulations/restrictions pushed by FreePress et al.

Broadband carriers have been very supportive and responsible participants in the congressional and executive processes to try and promote universal broadband access to all Americans soonest.

• Unlike the FreePress line, broadband providers did not proactively say they would not participate in this round of the broadband stimulus grants, they simply answered questions from some in the media that were pushed by FreePress to ask.

It seems the leading goal of promoting universal access for all Americans would benefit from FreePress expending more effort to promote universal broadband access and less on pushing their unnecessary and counter-productive net neutrality agenda that naturally undermines the financial and operational efforts to bring broadband to all Americans soonest.  

I was surprised that the Wall Street Journal editorial page printed Andy Kessler's datatopian rant today, which essentially calls for the Federal Government to economically regulate the competitive broadband Internet as a monopoly and move away from a market-driven property rights model for mobile Internet infrastructure.

After one reads Mr. Kessler's compilation of datatopian platitutudes and selective analysis, please consider the litany of datatopian assumptions (below), which undergird Mr. Kessler's regulatory recommendations. 

• Mr. Kessler's: "Why AT&T Killed Google Voice: Telecom operators are yesterday's business. It's time for a national data policy that encourages innovation."

Mr. Kessler's Datatopian Assumptions:

First, assume a broadband pipe(s).

Second, assume broadband/Internet works, always.

Third, assume all the billions of daily Internet transmissions just happen -- perfectly.

Fourth, assume everyone can always use as much bandwidth as they want.

Fifth, assume its all free.

Sixth, assume broadband doesn't need return on investment.

Kudos to Link Hoewing's insightful post on "The Internet's Evolution and Network Management" on Verizon's Policy Blog.  

• Its an important analysis and perspective for anyone wanting to understand how FCC regulation of the Internet and network management could negatively and seriously harm innovation and the Internet's natural evolution.

The lead WSJ story today, "Arrest in Epic Cyber Swindle" covering the cybercrime ring theft of over 130 million credit/debit cards, is a stark high-profile reminder of the very real and pervasive Internet problem of lack of cybersecurity. 

• In the face of overwhelming mainstream evidence that lack of cybersecurity is the Internet's #1 problem (see links below), including President Obama's declaration that cybersecurity must be a new national security priority in his 5-29 cybersecurity address, it is perplexing that none of the FCC's National Broadband Plan workshops are on cybersecurity. 
• It is hard to see how the Open Internet's growing security problem can be addressed and mitigated over time, if the U.S. Government's main big picture policy effort addressing the broadband Internet, the National Broadband Plan, does not even collect input from the public or experts on the Internet's #1 problem -- lack of cybersecurity.
• The first step in solving a big problem is acknowledging there is one. 

Vint Cerf, Google's Internet Evangelist, urged the FCC at a broadband workshop last week to regulate broadband networks as a utility like the electrical grid.

• I wonder if others spotted the irony in Google's "utility" regulation prescription for broadband.

Google's Mr. Cerf looks at the most competitive broadband market in the world, declares it inherently anti-competitive, and summarily prescribes... monopoly utility regulation for the entire broadband industry.

Meanwhile back at the Google Book Settlement ranch... Google has negotiated a de facto book search monopoly for itself in the Book Registry "utility" of the Google Book Settlement, without any regulation or Government oversight.  

First, antitrust's modern day Pinocchio claimed that competition is just "one click away," now Google is claiming that the notion that scale is important to search competition is "bogus."

• Google's Chief Economist, Hal Varian is pushing a preposterous, self-serving argument in CNET that scale is not important to search competition:
  • "...the scale arguments are pretty bogus in our view because it's not the quantity or quality of the ingredients that make a difference, it's the recipes. We think we're where we are today because we've got better recipes...  I also think we have a better kitchen..."

Why is Google's "bogus" claim bogus?

First, does Google think for a minute that antitrust enforcers' investigations have not assembled substantial evidence/quotes from Google itself about the importance of scale in search?

While the latest net neutrality bill introduced in Congress has no chance of passage as drafted, it is a bay window view into how extreme the net neutrality movement has become and into what they are seeking from the FCC via backdoor regulation.

• The proposed Markey-Eshoo bill, HR 3458, which was drafted in close coordination with FreePress and the Open Internet Coalition, is much more extreme than previous bills in 2008 and 2006.

Why is this bill the most extreme version of net neutrality yet?

First, it is a completely unworkable framework.

• It imposes a beyond-all-reason, effective absolute ban on prioritization of data traffic, essentially eliminating current essential network management flexibility to: protect networks from attack or malware; ensure quality of service; manage congestion, latency, and jitter; and handle unforeseen or emergency situations. Sections: 12(b)(5), 12(b)(6)

It is interesting that since I started this series spotlighting that security is and has been, for all practical and official purposes, a low corporate priority for Google, a Googler now publicly claims: "for Google, there is no higher priority than the safety and security of our users."

• This new public claim was made as part of a press release announcing that Google has joined the board of the National Cyber Security Alliance. 
• While I commend Google for joining the National Cyber Security Alliance, it is telling that none of the relevant official Google corporate links, indicate that security is a high priority for Google: check "Our Philosophy -- Ten Things," "Design Principles," or even "Google's Security Philosophy." 
• We will know when Google makes security a high priority when they actually walk the talk and when their official representation of their corporate priorities (in the main corporate links above) reflect that security has truly become a new higher priority for Google. 

This new claim and development presents a useful opportunity to evaluate Google's stated security philosophy.