Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-03-13 10:51
NN proponents in the U.S. have ignorantly been calling NN the "First Amendment of the Internet."
I really don't think NN proponents have thought this one through.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-03-12 16:28
A new net neutrality study by an associate professor of the Business School of the University of Florida, bases its entire approach and conclusions on two embarassingly and obviously wrong pillar assumptions.
What assumptions did they get wrong? and what is the big deal?
Lastly, when I was reading this embarrassingly-poorly researched and constructed paper, the image that came to mind was that of the great late commediene, Gilda Radner, playing one of the most famous characters of Saturday Night Live: "Rosanna Rosanna Danna."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-03-12 12:02
I wanted to connect the dots for folks of the national security relevance and implications of a net neutrality policy.
So what's the national security connection to NN?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Sun, 2007-03-11 17:34
Net neutrality proponents have been rebuffed ayet gain in trying to push NN at the state level.
NN state activists are now off to a predictable 0-2 start in trying to get the states to adopt what every entity at the Federal level has already rejected.
Why is the concept of Net Neutrality or net regulation 0-8 in official government forums of all types: legislative -- Federal and State, judicial and executive?
When responsible and accountable officials hear both sides of this debate in a fair and open forum -- with evidence and analysis of the merits, costs and benefits -- the right answer is consistently obvious -- if it isn't broke don't fix it!
This is the basic reason I organized NetCompetition.org last April as an eforum to encourage a free and open debate on the merits of the NN legislation.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-03-09 09:53
Today's lead WSJ article "As Power shifts, AT&T may alter Yahoo pact" is a must read.
The article also explains the AT&T-Yahoo pact from 2001 which gave Yahoo the "exclusive" to be SBC/AT&T's default webpage and search engine.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-03-08 21:41
I continue to be amazed with how many people have fallen for the manipulative NN sloganeering of "Internet Freedom" and just aren't thinking.
I fully grasp the surface branding appeal of "Internet freedom" because everyone has it now and cherishes it.
What I just don't get is the nonsensical logic behind the pro net neutrality case that we somehow get more freedom by restricting freedom.
Where freedom comes from in our country is our constitution, which ensures the ultimate power is with the people and which also tremendously limits the power of Government in a very wide variety of ways. Our Founding Fathers were truly brilliant.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-03-08 16:53
ClearWire's IPO today raised $600m to build out a nationwide broadband WiMax network. This is in addition to the $600m that Intel Capital invested in ClearWire last July. This is in addition to ClearWire's backing by billionaire Craig McCaw, the leading American wireless entrepreneur and pioneer.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-03-08 09:12
Be sure to watch the new short video on NN on YouTube by CEI.
We admire and tip our hat to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which like Netcompetition.org, is an organization dedicated to advancing free enterprise and limited government.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-03-07 10:37
For those looking for hefty substance in understanding the economic impacts of net regulation, I strongly recommend the Phoenix Center's new Policy Paper No. 28, Network Neutrality and Foreclosing Market Exchange: a Transaction Cost Analysis."
Why the Phoenix paper is so useful in this debate is it substantively explains how net regulation prohibitions on commerce negatively affect consumer prices, benefits and choices.
This paper also helps expose the biggest scam in the Net Neutrality debate, that net regulation benefits consumers.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-03-06 10:45
Kudos to Microsoft for finally making a high profile challenge to Google's "cavalier" approach to copyright as reported in the lead story of the FT and in the WSJ today. It's about time that Microsoft figured out that a key element of Google's phenomenal success is simply that Google does not play by the same rules as other law-abiding companies.
Under what authority does Google operate in carrying out its corporate mission?
Google cheats. and cheating is core to Google's long term business model. Let's review the evidence of Google's cheating: