Universal Broadband

The Financial Times had a noteworthy article about Google's role as an editor of content and defender of free speech -- when Google finds it convenient: "Thailand lifts Youtube ban after Google agrees to block some clips."

This article is an interesting juxtaposition to Google CEO Eric Schmidt's very recent comments on the importance of free speech at a speech before the Progress and Freedom Foundation. 

• "We need to defend freedom of speech as more speech comes on line. ...Let’s do this in the right way. Let’s preserve the openness and the freedom of speech principles. You could use Internet censorship, for example, as a non-tariff trade barrier, which we all need to fight because governments, especially non-U.S. governments, have an incentive to some degree to control the populations -- to do all the things that are obvious if you’re afraid of empowering your citizens."

 The FT article is a good opportunity to review if Google's actions support Google's rhetoric when it comes to Google defending free speech...

The Washington Post's editors should have been more forthright and put a "news analysis" label on their front page story today "Japan's warp-speed ride to Internet future." If the Post had put the "news analysis label on the story, I would not be writing this critical analysis on why the story was not news but a thinly-disguised advocacy piece for net neutrality masquerading as news or straightforward unbiased reporting.

Please read FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell's outstanding op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today. It eviscerates the sloppy thinking and weak evidence of net neutrality/open access proponents that are trying to manufacture a national broadband problem/crisis to justify their  new Big Government "National Broadband Policy."

This op-ed is particularly timely given the current  and tightly coordinated attempts by liberal House and Senate Democrats to establish the groundwork for an abandonment of competition and free market policies in communications and replace it with a new "National Broadband Policy" which is the liberal codeword for a Big Government-managed broadband sector.

What's wrong with this picture?

• Broadband is being adopted faster nationally in the US than most any analogous product in modern U.S. history.  
• The U.S. has more facility-based broadband competition than any country in the world.
• The Bush Administration goal of making broadband available to all Americans has been achieved.
• The recent FTC report on Broadband Connectivity said:  "To date we are unaware of any significant market failure or demonstrated consumer harm from conduct by broadband providers."
• "Nearly half of all Americans have broadband Internet connections in their homes, largely because of increasing use among minorities and the poor, according to an annual survey by the Pew Internet & American Life Project. ... Four out of 10 African-American adults have broadband access at home, compared to 15% two years ago."

What's wrong with this picture? Nothing! 

SaveTheInternet has a new video out that breathlessly claims that people only have until July 16th to tell the FCC to keep a "level playing field" in order to "save the Internet!"

• This vacuous "eye-candy" video only says "the Internet is under attack in Washington" but says nothing about what "the attack" actually is, why anyone in their right mind would want to "attack the Internet," what the FCC is actually doing or deciding that needs their input by July 16th, or even why there is a July 16th deadline to act.
• This video propoganda is a disturbingly accurate representation of the vacuousness of SaveTheInternet's whole net neutrality position and crusade.
• It is all form and fear and precious little substance.
• Its scary that they don't even try to inform or educate just incite.  
• It also tells us a lot about what they think of the intelligence-level of average Americans and those on their mailing list -- they obviously just see them as lemings to scare and herd off a proverbial cliff.  
• There is zero respect for people's intelligence in this video propaganda.
• SaveTheInternet sees no need for facts, for information, for context, for balance, or hearing both sides -- just feed the masses the dumbest possible version of a scare message and shout that they have an urgent deadline to act!

This video is damning proof of how vacuous the net neutrality regulation movement has become. View it and weep.

The Washington Post gave a lot of "free" ink to former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt today to push for his Frontline Wireless corporate welfare scheme. The article also provides a "bay window view" of Mr. Hundt's perverted view of "competition."

• Mr. Hundt said: "We're asking the FCC to place conditions on the sale of the license, just like zoning on real estate."
• Competition through zoning regulations!
• This captures the essence of Mr Hundt's "market" views. He has always thought "competition" was much too important to be left to the marketplace.
• Mr. Hundt's entire tenure as FCC Chairman was characterized with a deep distrust of free market forces and a fondness for writing very detailed regulations that heavily tilted the playing field to guarantee his desired outcomes.

Now that his company has $3b in capital and is prepared to raise up to $10b in the next five years, according to the Post, why is he so afraid to compete in the auction like everyone else?

Frontline's Reed Hundt is mounting a furious eleventh hour effort to finagle a backroom sweetheart deal for his company from the FCC, in the 700 MHz auction. He attacked the outstanding op ed in the Washington Post by Robert Hahn and Hal Singer in both the Post and in RCR.  Our former Big Government FCC Chairman, Mr. Hundt also apparently has lost his cool and perpsective in railing against the rollout of the new, innovative and already successful iPhone as somehow a market failure that only his company can cure.

A core purpose of NetCompetition.org is to promote a debate of Net neutrality regulation on the merits. SaveTheInternet.com had a recent blog post "Painting over broadband failures with pretty pictures" that prompted me to comment on their blog -- which I have included below:

"If SaveTheInternet followers are truly "open" to diverse points of view that may be different from theirs, I recommend that you consider the mounting evidence that the US is in fact not falling behind but is actually a unique success in promoting facilities-based broadband competition in the world. Please see this link for the four best alternative views on this question:
http://www.precursorblog.com/node/451 .

Given the ongoing reporting of claims by net neutrality proponents that US broadband deployment is falling behind our international competitors (like the USA Today article in this link suggests), it is helpful to pull together some of the best analyses I have seen that debunk these claims by the OECD/CWA.  

For those who care to more substantively review the facts, evidence and merits of this very important public policy question, I highly recommend reading the following four sources linked in this blog, which all effectively and differently debunk the claim the US is falling behind on broadband:

Congrats to Jeff Eisenach of Criterion Economics for his outstanding and incisive analysis "Due Diligence: Risk Factors in the Frontline Proposal."

• Jeff Eisenach wonderfully brings clear thinking and common sense to a topic that sorely needs it.

The analysis exposes the Google-supported Frontline Wireless proposal for what it is... a "trust us" investment of effectively billions of dollars in forgone receipts due to the American taxpayer in a free market auction.