Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-01-19 12:30
Kudos to Dave Farber and Michael Katz on their very persuasive and compelling Op Ed in the Washington Post opposing net neutrality. I strongly endorse their perspective and wisdom.
I feel great kinship with their point of view. There is no problem here. And there is a lot of harm and unintended consequences that can result from preemptively regulating the Internet.
Like David and Mike, I am well aware of the potential problems that market power could have. I have a long and public record of standing up to monopoly behavior that I viewed as out of bounds. But I am also a fact and analysis person. The facts and the analysis show this is a competitive marketplace becoming even more competitive in the future.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-01-19 09:49
Robert Kahn, known as the co-father of the Internet along with Google's Vint Cerf, opposes net neutrality becuase it would inhibit necessary experimentation and innovation. Kudos to a great article in the Register on this.
The fact that Network engineers like Robert Kahn and Dave Farber oppose net neutrality make it clear that net neutrality is not this simple benign policy. It is very dangerous preemptive legislation that presumes to perfectly know the future to allow them to lock in for perpetuity one interation of the Internet.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-01-18 18:16
National Journal's Tech Daily recycled an old factually incorrect charge about Netcompetition.org in its article today on how grassroots groups are lobbying the Senate to omit themselves from the Senate's Ethics and lobbying law.
I have asked National Journal for a correction for recycling the factually wrong assessment of Common Cause that Netcompetition.org is an "astroturf" grass roots group.
The offending excerpt of the Tech Daily article is below:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-01-17 18:44
I just got around to watching House telecom Subcommittee Chariman Ed Markey address the Memphis media reform conference and was struck that he felt the need to go out of his way to defend Google and only Google at this strongly anti-business forum.
With all due respect Mr. Chairman, "Why should we protect Google?" is precisely the right question.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-01-16 14:22
The hypocrisy of net neutrality supporters appears to have no bounds! The influential left wing MyDD blog of Chris Bowers is unabashedly setting out on a broad Internet to manipulate Google search results with their negative political take on John McCain. I need not say more. Just read the link above or see the excerpt I have posted below.
Today, I am proposing a long-term, anti-McCain googlebomb project similar to the Googlebomb the Elections campaign I founded in 2006. Read the extended entry for details.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-01-16 13:51
The respected National Journal has a very interesting article about YouTube and how it may be choosing sides or is not "neutral." It's an important quick read; kudos to National Journal for focusing on it.
Why is this noteworthy?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-01-16 10:24
It is the height of hypocrisy that non-neutral Google/Yahoo, with 77% share of the search market and rising, continues to assert that the neutrally-operating phone and cable companies are duopolists that endanger the free and open web. Google and Yahoo are increasingly dominant search gatekeepers for the Internet. ComScore's latest figures show Google with 47.3%, Yahoo with 28.5%, market share and rising -- and #3 Microsoft 10.5%, and #4 IAC Ask at 5.4% and falling.
Why this is so hypocritical is that:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-01-12 18:34
I just read SaveTheInternetâ€™s new manifesto â€“ â€œThe Internet Freedom Declaration of 2007â€? and I'm sure it's going to be the main topic of conversation in Memphis this weekend at the NCMR.
On the surface it, I must commend the improved choice of language and the tone, it is a much more thoughtful and less strident policy statement than this group has produced before. Itâ€™s certainly easier on the ears, even if it isnâ€™t to the trained eye.
That said, lets get down to brass tacks.
NN demoted to second amendment status!
The most interesting part of the new manifesto is that when this group had to rank â€œnet neutralityâ€? relative to its other Internet priorities or â€œInternet rightsâ€?, net neutrality was not first, but was effectively demoted to â€œsecondâ€? amendment status. (Forget last years rhetoric.. as just rhetoric.)
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-01-12 10:37
To commemorate the "Seinfeld-ian" aspect of "net neutrality being a show about nothing," NetCompetition.org has introduced a prominent, "What's the Problem?" daily ticker on the NetCompetition.org site.
It has been 1,516 days or over four years, since the term "net neutrality" was first used publicly and that there has been no net neutrality mandate.
*Professor Lawrence Lessig is credited with making up the term "net neutrality". Its a clever, but vacuous term that has caught on.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-01-10 17:50
There are several telling indications that net neutrality remains a political and partisan issue and is not a serious legislative/policy issue or industry problem.
First, the only change in the Senate net neutrality bill just introduced, was to change its name from Snowe-Dorgan to Dorgan-Snowe to reflect the new Democratic changeover of Congress. Other than that, the actual bill language is identical to last yearâ€™s bill -- according to Senator Dorganâ€™s spokesperson and my review of the two bills.
Second, isnâ€™t it very telling that the sponsors have learned nothing, let me repeat nothing, since they introduced their bill eight months ago that might have made their bill better or attracted more consensus?