Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-04-17 11:01
Today's WSJ editorial page hits the free-market nail on the head once again in its lead editorial: "The Spectrum Game"; it's about the FCC's upcoming decision on how to auction the 700 MHz of spectrum that is considered by the market to be "the Riviera beachfront property" of all spectrum potentially available.
WSJ understands this is the most valuable spectrum the FCC has ever auctioned.
I hope the FCC is wise enough to see through this net neutrality spectrum scam, and not effectively bypass Congress' authority by effectively legislating corporate spectrum entitlements unauthorized by Congress.
To guard against charges that there is an-under-the-table transfer of billions of dollars due the American taxpayer under the law, the FCC needs to be completely transparent and upfront about the implications their decisions have on auction proceeds.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-04-16 13:59
The news of Google acquiring Double-Click prompted me to spend a good part of my weekend analyzing the competitive implications of this seminal proposed acquisition for the future of the Internet.
My analysis focused on answering the following key questions of interest:
Summary of my conclusions:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Sun, 2007-04-15 15:45
It seems that having ~90% gross proift margins, a $145b market capitalization, and one of the highest-flying stocks in the market is just not enough resources for Google.
Not surprisingly, Google CEO Eric Schimdt's has come up with yet another creative new answer for who should pay for upgrading Internet capacity for video -- the American taxpayer! Certainly not Google!
Cost avoidance and sticking it to the taxpayer is part of a pattern for Google.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-04-13 12:52
MultiChannel News has a great write up of a tough speech on net neutrality by David Cohen, Executive Vice President of Comcast.
Kudos to Mr. Cohen for taking the gloves off and saying what needs to be said.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-04-12 14:11
As we recently modified and updated the Netcompetition website to make it even easier to use and work with, we decided to take the little ant fable flash on net neutrality we produced, and that has been exclusively on our site for awhile, and post it to YouTube in order to broaden the audience.
It's only a 1 minute 40 second flash.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-04-12 13:52
The bottom line here is that net neutrality is all about unsubstantiated allegations of problems.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-04-11 13:21
Moveon.org's SaveTheInternet blog is touting Democratic Presidential Candidate John Edwards' recent comments supporting net neutrality.
We all know politics is often driven by fear and by creating boogeymen where none really exist -- and at that, Moveon.org is a master.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-04-11 10:24
The Politico ran a story April 9th called the "The Human Face of Net Neutrality" that grossly exagerates the "net roots" involvement on net neutrality.
The article implies that there is somehow a difference between the "Moveon.org net roots" and traditional broadband lobbying.
All this Politico article reports is that Moveon.org was able to "top down" organize dozens of meetings during recess with dozens of members on net neutrality.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-04-10 10:43
The body of evidence from mainstream sources that Google systematically steals other's property continues to pile up.
So Google supporters are probably asking "so what?"
Bottom line: Google likes to brag about its culture of pursuing "innovation without permission."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-04-09 19:57
In one of my recent Internet searches I came accross a very interesting historical article that appears to predate Moveon.org's creation of SaveTheInternet to promote so called "net neutrality."
The article in the NYT from fourteen months ago in February of 2006 called "Plan for fees on some emails spurs protest" show that Moveon.org is no different than any other special interest in looking out for themselves.
When you connect the dots of when all this was occurring -- it is pretty clear that while Moveon.org and consumer groups claimed to be saving the Internet -- they were really asking for self-serving special interest legislation, which would protect them from paying a more market-based-rate for their emailings -- which have to be among the largest bulk emails in the country.
How Moveon.org was able to mobilize so many groups is that they played to their fears that they all might have to pay more in the future because in a market-based system they might have to pay for what they use.
What annoys me is that they call broadband companies self-serving, but they are no different.