Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2006-11-08 12:06
FCC Democratic Commissioner Copps editorial in the Washington Post, America's Internet Disconnect" is a very good guide to how theÃ‚ debate over communications policy and net neutrality will shift with DemocraticÃ‚ asendancyÃ‚ in Congress. Ã‚
I have the utmost respect for Commissioner Copps personally even though I generally disagree with his conclusions when we look at the same set of facts or analysis. It probably results from his greater trust in government than markets and my greate trust in markets than government.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2006-11-07 12:21
Today is a big day in the history of blogging because the SEC Chairman Cox has gone on record effectivley encouraging companies to blog -- see the originalÃ‚ AP story that highlights the SEC's Chairman's comment on Sun Microsystem's blog.
Corporations to date have been reluctant to embrace blogging technology in part I believe out of the fear of the unknown. One of those unknowns was clearly what the SEC and markets would think.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2006-11-06 19:01
When financial types describe Google's growth juggernaut they routinely say that 99% of Google's revenues come from search advertising. Remarkably they have turned search advertising from nothing 8 years ago to a roughly $10 billion a year business. Truly extraordinary. But how did they do it? Through economic discrimination, the highest bidder wins. Basic market forces.
So what's my point? Google's entire business model is based on discriminating against websites -- what they say net neutrality is needed to prevent.Ã‚
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2006-11-03 15:23
Please also make note of Chairman Martin's clever use of the word "neutrality" in his statement:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2006-11-03 13:25
Every now an then someone comes up with a new great analogy that really helps us get to the heart of a matter. Canadian Mark Goldberg's telecom trends blog really hit the nail on the head in this post.Ã‚
Let's go right to his analogy:
Before I worked at Videotron, I was in the food business Ã¢â‚¬â€œ we were a 'content producer' in the parlance of today's communications business. To reach our customers, we dealt with a distribution channel, in our case, grocery stores.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2006-11-02 17:55
Newsweek's article "Diller Weaves a Web" is a very clear example of the gross competition double standard that tech companies are pursuing in asking for aÃ‚ "non-discrimination" principle to only apply to competitiveÃ‚ broadband companiesÃ‚ but not to themselves.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have any trouble with IAC pursuing this business model.Ã‚ Ã‚ IÃ‚ am only needling IACÃ‚ for its bald, self-serving hypocrisy of seeking to get the government to protect them from potentially "discriminatory" competition so they can freelyÃ‚ "discriminate"Ã‚ against the little guy website that ItsOurNet claims to be supporting.
Let's look at an interesting quote from the Newsweek article:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2006-11-01 14:50
Something that Alan Davidson, head of Google's Washington office, said at our NVTC net neutrality debate yesterday has been troubling me. He said Google believed in "innovation without permission."
While "innovation without permission" may be a useful mantra in encouraging Google folks from not getting bureaucratic and to "think outside the box" -- it's very troubling because it seems it is their public policy too.
I guess it means Google doesn't need any property owners' permission to innovate.
What a buzz kill to have to ASK for permission to innovate. Doesn't everyone understand that Google is just "liberating" that property for the common good and just earning a little commission along the way for their altruism? What's the harm in that? They are not "doing evil" are they?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2006-10-31 18:16
I launched the debate this morning at the NVTC forum on Net Neutrality with the following comment: "Net neutrality is an online fundraising ploy masequerading as public policy." It certainly focusedÃ‚ the debate onÃ‚ the real reasonÃ‚ why this issue has become so big so quickly.Ã‚ I pointed out that on substance it was a bogus issue. No substantiated problem or consumer harm and that all the substantive assertions made byÃ‚ net neutrality proponents have proven false. When the substance was so weak andÃ‚ the threat only theoretical, there had to be more going on.
I focused on the dirty little secret that partially-motivated many net neutrality proponents --which is how super-productive it is for groups that want to raise money onlineÃ‚ to scareÃ‚ people that there are boogymen that want to takeÃ‚ the Internet away from them. Net neutrality has clearly become one of the most efficient ways to "shake the money tree." Ã‚
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2006-10-31 17:45
Attached is a link to Alfred Kahn's (of Airline deregulation fame) views on Net neutrality.Ã‚ Thanks to PFF for posting this gem.
It's a very relevant read because Mr. Kahn considers himself: "a good liberalÃ‚ Democrat." He is also one of the most respected figures on the subject of regulation and de-regulation regardless of party or political persuasion.
Here are a couple of good quotes:
If Noam's right that the future of Internet is telecom-like regulation -- everyone should be very afraidSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2006-10-30 14:07
Read Eli Noam's recent FT editorial "TV regulation will become telecom regulation", becuase if he is rightÃ‚ (and I don't think he is)Ã‚ you should beÃ‚ afraid for the future, very afraid.
I have always respected ProfessorÃ‚ Noam of the Columbia Business School even if I oftenÃ‚ don'tÃ‚ agree with him.Ã‚ He is a rare person who sees this complex space as a whole and has clarity of thought.Ã‚
His basic point is thatÃ‚ TV regulation will become to resemble telecomÃ‚ regulation more are and more. He concludes that "the present debate over net neutrality is a harbinger of more to come." Ã‚ Ã‚