Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2006-09-08 10:12
Both SavetheInternet.org and ItsOurNet.org are desperately trying to convince any reporter or media outlet they can -- that their perception of political "momentum" on net neutrality -- is in fact reality. Read below for evidence why they are delusional and believing their own spin.
Let's review reality and the facts of the supposed "momentum."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2006-09-07 10:11
Mr. Markey (D-MA), one of THE BIGGEST net neutrality proponents, is the keynote speaker at the fall VON conference Tuesday September 12th. He is also the author of the House "Net Neutrality Act of 2006" which was defeated in the House earlier in the year by a wide margin about 270-150.
Big on rhetoric, but thin on substance, I believe Mr. Markey has some explainng to do about the dark side of his HR.5273 that has not been sufficiently challenged.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2006-09-06 12:47
Sprint just announced that it will offer pay-per-view movies exclusively for its cell phones. for 4-6$ a Sprint customer can watch a film in parts or in its entirety whenever or wherever they want to. Sprint is the first company to offer this innovation and I expect other wireless companies to eventually follow suit.
This is precisely the type of innovation and service that never would have occurred if there was a net neutrality requirement!
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2006-09-06 12:07
I just read the text of Qwest CEO Dick Notebaert's remarks on NN at the Progress and Freedom Foundation last month. He is one of the most clear thinking leaders I know and I thought some of his insights were important to highlight here.
He started with first things first, how important the Internet is to America's economy: "we have created an economic engine that is vibrant, full of energy, and poised for the future. How some folks can...want the Internet to be saddled with regulatory micromanagment just boggles my mind."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2006-09-06 11:59
The Chicago Sun Times Editorial today gets it. They sliced through the NN mumbo jumbo and realized there is no evidence of a problem today, only a hypothetical concern. Like any rational person they don't want all the parade of horribles to occur, but they are wise enough to not take the bait and call for preemptive NN regulation in the absence of a real problem.
This editorial board understands that market forces are vastly superior to government regulation and that -- in the absence of a real problem -- inviting government intervention into the market -- is a very scary prospect.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2006-09-05 18:56
I did an hour radio interview today on mytechnologylawyer.com today, to give all the best arguments against net neutrality. It was refreshing to have a forum where the clear purpose was to hear the unvarnished anti-net neutrality view becuase they will hear the other side's unvarnished next week when they will host Itsournet.org, Tuesday September 12 at 1PM EST with four pro-net neutrality guests.
It was a very liberating forum as I was given the full time and free reign to lay down the detailed arguments of why NN is such a horrible public policy idea. In particular I was able to debunk in detail how the Internet has never been "neutral" and give a detailed rebuttal of the gross misrepresentation that there is a broadband duopoly or insufficient competition.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2006-09-01 11:44
Gotta love Daily Kos' indignance that Cable is running a very effective anti-net neutrality ad on their beloved Comedy Central show (that by the way has shilled for the NN cause and mercilessly spoofed Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens.)
How dare cable invade their hallowed neutral ground and horrors speak ill of their beloved net neutrality! It is blasphemy! There should be no cable industry free speech -- only politically-correct speech that agree with approved neutral-dogma!
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2006-08-31 15:31
I was interviewed on CNBC this AM on Verizon and Bell South dropping their planned new DSL fees in face of FCC pressure.
First, I said this was a political issue not a competitive one. In the politically-charged environment of pending telecom legislation, the companies made the political mistake of getting in the way of the FCC being able to take political credit for some consumers bills going down. The FCC, like any political animal, does not like "rain on their parade."
When the FCC ruled last year that DSL was an unregulated info service like cable (the decision that germinated the net neutrality issue politically) a side effect of that decision was to no longer require that DSL pay a $1-2 a month regulatory fee into the Universal Service fund.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2006-08-30 17:15
One of the most significant recent NN developments was the very detailed and cogent analysis and speech of the Federal Trade Commission Chairman Majoras last week. Why was it so significant?
First, it was the most comprehensive and forthcoming analyses of net neutrality by any of the three Federal enforcement authorities who's statutory job is to protect competition (FCC, DOJ and FTC). It is a very good proxy for where the FCC and DOJ are.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2006-08-29 16:21
Chris Saaca, a senior Google executive was quoted in the New York Times earlier this month conceding that Google's wiring of its home town of Mountain View, California with free WiFi service, "a city of 72,000 residents, cost roughly $1 million, an amount that Mr. Saaca said demonstrated the low barriers to deploying such a service." (emphasis added)
In the same article Saaca is also quoted saying: "I think there wouldn't be a Net Neutrality debate in this country if we really had a competitive environment for access." Does Google's hubris and hypocrisy know no bounds?