You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2006-06-21 19:13
I really enjoyed this New York sun article on Clinton, Other Hopefuls Reach For Netroots
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/34792 . It appears that NN is the politically expedient position for democratic political candidates who want and need to raise beaucoup bucks from the Internet. The old adage is true, if you want honey don't kick the beehive.
NN clearly is not a "New Democrat" position. Sad the Democratic Presidential candidates are going back to Old Democrat ways, but that is typical of the pre-primary cycle.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2006-06-20 11:18
Today's WSJ had a very interesting article on how municipalities are seeking to offer free city-wide WiFi broandband servce to their residents paid for by advertising. Hello? It appears as if municipalities around the country have not connected-the-dots of the Snowe-Dorgan NN bill could effectively outlaw that business model in serving consumers becuase it would be discriminatory. Municipalities might consider weighing in on Snowe-Dorgan so the hand of BIG GOVERNMENT does not ban their nascent innovative efforts.
The Snowe-Dorgan bill is so breath-takingly indiscriminate and sweepingly hyper-regulatory that it regulates anything remotely broadband. First, in a fit of hubris, Snowe-Dorgan, even legally defines the word "user" for the first time, which even the hyper-regulatory House Markey Bill did not deem necessary! Why are they defining "users" unless they want to regulate them too?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2006-06-19 13:30
One of the biggest reasons NN would be a disaster to implement is that no one can define it --meaning it would be left to the courts to do so -- which can take eleven years! Late last week the DC Court of Appeals finally upheld for the first time the FCC's unbundling rules stemming from the 1996 Telecom Act. It took the FCC four attempts over eleven years to craft rules implementing the 1996 Telecom Act's unbundling rules.
Why is this a big issue for NN? First the House Markey and Snowe-Dorgan bills were drafted very similarly to the section 251 of the Telecom Act, which created so much legal uncertainty.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2006-06-19 08:30
I am encouraged Chairman Stevens new third draft has focused on a consumer-oriented net neutrality compromise more in line with the light touch in the House approach. The ecommerce giants have consistently pushed for a producer-oriented approach which is designed to protect themselves from more competition while doing little for the consumer. Chairman Stevens gets it.
My view continues to be that the legislation should not mention net nuetrality at all becuase any mention of it leaves future heavy handed regulators an opening for Big Govenment regulation and micromanagment of the Internet.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2006-06-14 18:28
"I don't know anything"
"These people are bad people"
"I like winning"
"Vilifying Mike McCurry is really important"
These quotes are taken straight from Matt Stoller's speech on net neutrality at this past weekend's Yearly Kos convention in Vegas. Don't believe me? Check out the video.
So Matt's has been blogging nearly every day on an issue that he openly admits he doesn't understand all in the hopes of scoring political points and mobilizing the Democratic base. Why even bother with a debate focused on the issues, when the other side just wants to "vilify" and "win".
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2006-06-14 11:11
I will be debating net neutrality for two hours today on Pacifica radio an NPR affiliate. www.pacifica.org. about 100 stations nationally.
In DC, it will be on WPFW 89.3 FM from 10-12
During the first hour I will be chatting with Gigi Sohn of Public Knowledge, and the second hour Anthony Riddle will join the debate.
I invite everyone to listen in.