You are here
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 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 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?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-01-10 09:46
Listening to Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, in a podcast interview with Richard Scoble at the CES show, Microsoft clearly is no longer singing from the ItsOurNet hymnal on net neutrality.
When Microsoft withdrew its support and funding from ItsOurNet in the late fall, it indicated that it intended to rejoin ItsOurNet after the merger review was complete.
Whether or not Microsoft stays out of ItsOurNet or not, it is clear from this podcast interview that the head of Microsoft does not agree with the standard ItsOurNet line on NN.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-01-10 09:08
Both Seinfeld and net neutrality are shows about nothing.
Isn't America great that you can make something out of nothing?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-01-08 22:44
If one only listened to net neutrality proponents, one would conclude that American innovation was at deathâ€™s door, because there was no â€œnet neutralityâ€? in law.
Where is the evidence of the horrible discrimination problem the government must fix immediately? There is none!
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-01-05 10:40
Net neutrality proponents are trying to make hay and promote net neutrality by saying that the application of NN to WiMax fixed wireless in one of the FCC's AT&T merger conditions amounts to breaking the wireless barrier.
A little fact check and history lesson is in order to douse this silliness.
Wireless is obviously competitive; everyone who turns on a TV or reads a newspaper and sees the blizzard of ads knows it is very competitive. The lame "duopoly" argument is a joke when applied to wireless, noone will take it seriously.
Wifi is free and has never been subject to net neutrality. The U.S. has more WiFi hotspots than any other country. What is the problem here that needs to be fixed?
The FCC condition extending NN to WiMax, a nascent technology with miniscule market share to date, is not a big deal, becuase it is no "principle." AT&T is also forced to divest WiMax spectrum and that WiMax spectrum won't be subject to NN. Some principle!
The attempt to lasso wireless into NN would be laughable if its dire unintended consequences were not so serious. Has anyone heard the phrase: "if it ain't broke don't fix it?"
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-01-05 08:41
In my recent blog post, "Why Microsoft's new Internet 7 explorer browser discriminates against small business" I mistakenly used the incorrect first name in my transcription of a Wall Street Journal quote. The quote should have been attributed to "Greg" Waldron (not "Gerry"), of the Waldron company http://thewaldroncompany.com/index.html. Greg Waldron is founder of a company which is an online provider of water fountains. Precursorbog regrets the error.