You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2009-11-12 16:07
Anyone who cares about the competence of the studies the FCC has commissioned/outsourced to produce the FCC's National Broadband Plan, needs to read George Ford's devastating critique of the economic literacy of Harvard Professor Benkler's broadband survey for the FCC.
In a nutshell, the econometric analysis Professor Benkler relied on would have earned a failing grade in any Harvard economics class, because the supply curve slopes in the wrong direction. Oops!
To be fair, Professor Benkler is a law Professor not an economist, but even an undergrad economics 101 student could have caught the fatal flaw in the analysis Professor Benkler relies upon.
The FCC should insist that Harvard employ competent reviewers to ensure that the basic information and analysis provided to the FCC is at least minimally competent in the disciplines covered by the survey.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2009-11-02 13:21
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Sun, 2009-10-25 23:29
Like the child that plays with matches is surprised when the fire he started threatens to burn his own house, Google CEO Eric Schmidt shared his gulity conscience with the Washington Post last week -- i.e. that the net neutrality regulation fire Google started and fanned, would be "terrible," if it burned Google and "led the government to involve itself as a regulator of the broader Internet."
Did it not occur to Google that bankrolling a flame-thrower-style net neutrality campaign urging preemptive, draconian regulation to prevent a potential problem, might not torch the decade of strong bipartisan consensus and calm in the Congress and at the FCC -- to not regulate or tax the Internet?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2009-10-20 15:18
72 House Democrats' Letter Urges FCC "to avoid tentative conclusions which favor government regulation"Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2009-10-16 15:56
72 House Democrats wrote the FCC pushing back on the direction the FCC apparently is headed in its proposed Open Internet/net neutrality regulations to be voted on October 22nd. From the letter:
It was signed by the 72 House Democrats listed below:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2009-09-24 10:27
What an "Open Internet" does not mean is as important as what it does mean.
The word "open" has 88 different definitions per Dictionary.com and the word "open" has even more different connotations depending on the context. While the term "open" generally has a positive connotation to mean un-restricted, accessible and available, it can also have a negative or problematic connotation if it means unprotected, unguarded or vulnerable to attack.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2009-09-21 13:53
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 21, 2009
Contact: Scott Cleland
NetCompetition.org Comments on Proposed FCC Preemptive Regulation of the Internet
FCC Risks Killing the Golden Goose of the Internet – Mutual Self-Interest and Cooperation
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2009-09-16 12:09
George Ford of the Phoenix Center does a great job of debunking the OECD's latest self-serving set of metrics covering mobile prices in his latest research piece: "Be careful what you ask for: a comment on the OECD's mobile price metrics."
The OECD's mobile metric approach reminds me of the old adage that you can get statistics to say anything you want -- if you beat them up enough. As George's white paper shows, the OECD had to really work over the data to get it to reach the upside-down conclusion that Europe's average wireless prices are lower than the U.S.
First, the OECD ignored the pesky notion of overall wireless usage, because if they looked at usage they would have to include the pesky fact that Americans use massively more wireless minutes of use than their European counterparts -- roughly 2-6 times more depending on the country.
Second, ignoring usage allows the OECD to ignore economics and common sense, because if people were told Americans use the most wireless minutes of use, someone might obviously connect-the-dots of supply & demand and conclude that Americans' more minutes of use are a result of lower average prices than other countries.
Third, George pointed out that the OECD selectively chose certain usage price points on the usage curve to best make their case. However, if one looks at the entire distribution of the curve, their selective conclusion looks all the more "selective" and suspect.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2009-09-08 17:10
Harry Potter fans know there is "He-who-must-not-be-named."
Unbenownst to me until I read about it in Communications Daily, the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association (NTCA) cited my 12-08 Precursor research study in a submission to the FCC about how Universal Service may interact with the National Broadband Plan.
The reason I am blogging about this now is:
Given the interest in affordable universal broadband, I endeavored to explore the highly relevant issue about whether, Google, the entity that uses the most, and benefits the most, from Internet bandwidth, contributes to its cost recovery commensurate with its benefit.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2009-09-03 17:12
FreePress says the "FCC Should Set Bar High for Broadband Definition."
There is broad consensus behind promoting broadband access to all Americans soonest.
My creative solution is don't listen to FreePress.
If FreePress really believed in Universal Broadband and was trying to be constructive, it would not be pushing a counter-productive, unreasonable, and completely unaffordable "high-bar" broadband definition.