You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2009-08-26 12:34
Analysis of the potential pitfalls of wireless innovation regulation is a necessary complement to the FCC's upcoming Notice of Inquiries into wireless competition/innovation and the DOJ's review of wireless competition, in order to ensure policymakers get a balanced view of the big picture.
What are the Top 10 Pitfalls of Wireless Innovation Regulation?
#1 Pitfall: Losing focus on universal broadband access.
"Wireless innovation" appears to be the latest rebranding iteration of "net neutrality" and "open Internet" as the net neutrality movement searches for more mainstream support of their views.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2009-08-25 22:46
I love to learn and I learned a lot of new information and insights from George Ou's great new post on understanding how usage caps really affect broadband throughput.
I certainly hope fellow broadband experts at the FCC, NTIA, RUS, OSTP and on the Hill are reading George, and this post in particular, because George's insightful and illuminating analysis can help take the National Broadband Plan analysis to another more substantive level of understanding.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2009-08-21 18:45
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.
Second, users have choice of access providers.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2009-08-20 11:36
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.
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.
Will National Broadband Plan Address Cybersecurity? Part XVI : Open Internet's Growing Security ProblemSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2009-08-18 12:35
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.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Sun, 2009-08-16 17:56
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.
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.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2009-08-13 11:36
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.
Why is this bill the most extreme version of net neutrality yet?
First, it is a completely unworkable framework.
A Maslow "Hierarchy of Internet Needs?" -- Will there be Internet priorities or a priority-less Internet?Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2009-07-30 11:29
A central policy question concerning the future of the Internet, cloud computing, and the National Broadband Plan is whether there should be Internet priorities or a priority-less Internet?
To grasp the inherent problem and impracticality with a mandated neutral or priority-less Internet, it is helpful to ask if the Internet, which is comprised of hundreds of millions of individual users, has a mutual "hierarchy of needs" just like individuals have a "hierarchy of needs," per Maslow's famed, common sense "Hierarchy of Needs" theory.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2009-07-27 13:22
"People are not approaching this from the perspective of helping us analyze what the trade-offs are" said FCC Broadband Coordinator Blair Levin about public comments to the National Broadband Plan -- per Multichannel News.
A recap of the key trade-offs facing the FCC:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2009-07-22 17:51
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 21, 2009
Contact: Scott Cleland
NetCompetition.org Files Reply Comments on National Broadband Plan NOI
Plan should ensure Government & private sector can work together and aren’t at cross-purposes