You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2006-07-19 16:17
The Washington Post reports today that the Indian government ordered Indian ISPs to block acccess to many websites and blogs. Now the second most populous country, India, in addition to China, the most populous country, are blocking free and open access to the Internet.
Why oh why do the american neutrality-ites think it is a good idea to invite the Federal government of the world's third most populous country into the business of policing bit traffic, when there isn't even a problem? Is it because neutrality-ites trust the government more than business? I think so. At the core of the net neutrality movement is a deep anti-business, anti-capitalism, pro-big-government bent.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2006-07-19 14:47
Dave Farber, former FCC Chief technologist and professor to Vint Cerf, made one of the most profound and important comments I have ever heard in this NN debate yesterday. As reported in today's Communications Daily: "The chief threat to Internet culture isn't bit discrimination, but DRM, (Digital Rights Management) a peril to the Web's information-sharing ethos, Farber said. And DRM comes from content providers and content owners, not network providers, he said."
I've been ruminating on this truly profound insight for most of the day and had to comment on it here. Farber is right. Dead right. The neutrality-ites have organized around the wrong boogeyman.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2006-07-18 17:47
Below is my last rebuttal to the flaming by CNET Editor Molly Wood of my NPR Morning Edition commentary on NN. I take her to task for dismissing the reality of unintended consequences and for being uninformed and anti-business.
My dead serious straight-faced rebuttal to your last point.
Molly, your snide conclusion to your Cleland-bashing of my NPR Morning Edition commentary on Net Neutrality first exposes that you have very little appreciation of the unintended consequences of government intervention, and second that you either have little grasp of business and the sector or you are deeply anti-business.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2006-07-18 16:28
It says in CNET’s vision statement that CNET “is a different kind of media company.” I trust that does not mean a different code of journalistic ethics and fairness than is standard in the industry.
In CNET’s corporate values statement under “Trust” it says: “We have no agenda other than to help people learn and find great solutions.”
Why oppose a fair and balanced debate on net neutrality that would help people learn? Wouldn’t that communicate that CNET has “no other agenda than to help people learn and find great solutions?” Or should CNET be listed as a supporter in the Itsournet.org Net Neutrality coalition?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2006-07-18 12:24
I always enjoy reading, listening, and learning from Adam Thierer of the Progress and Freedom Foundation because of his clarity of thought and practical insights. His latest blog is noteworthy
He makes a pretty persuasive case of why special Microsoft-Verizon commercial cooperation could best serve each of their customers.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2006-07-18 10:07
We thought the time was ripe to produce another flash video on net neutrality, because they are such a fun and effective way to communicate what is really going on in this net neutrality debate.
When the dominant online giants: Google, Microsoft, eBay, Yahoo, Amazon, and IAC, first funded and named "Itsournet.org," their pro-net neutrality lobbying coalition, we needled them here for their "Freudian Slip" in claiming they "owned" the Internet. We suggested to them that it might be more forthright and neutral to "share" ownership of the Internet with the rest of America and rename their coalition: itseveryonesnet.org. Alas they did not take our advice.
Thus, we thought their elitist sense of Internet ownership and entitlement was worthy of a new flash video.
We can see what has happened. The online realms of Google, Microsoft, eBay and Yahoo, with their 80-90% gross margins and their dominant market shares have naturally grown to believe the Internet is "theirs." Like royalty, they believe they are "entitled" to dynastic ownership of their online realms for perpetuity, and shouldn't have to stoop so low as to have to compete to keep it.
How dare anyone ask the royal Internet companies, who use and benefit from the Internet the most, to help pay for some of its upgrade! Their response is "let the consumer pay!" Their "royal" edict is clear: "Royalty" doesn't have to pay, royalty gets paid.
We hope you enjoy our little royal fable.
Netcompetition's first flash video has been seen over 2500 times on youtube.com, and our "welfare for billionaires" idea, was headlined in this interesting June 14th Wall Street Journal story on the net neutrality debate.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2006-07-17 14:36
I thought it would be useful to “translate” the “Washington-ese” of the online giants’ recent letter to the Senate on NN. My translation is in italics.
We write to express our deep concern with the Advanced Telecommunications and Opportunity Reform Act, S. 2686.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2006-07-17 13:45
Kid you not, Google's Vint Cerf in his debate today actually ruminated on the need to create a comic book to educate Congress on the Internet and net neutrality. He also played to the elites in the audience, by giving veiled instructions to a questioner to google "Stevens" and "tubes." Mr. Cerf apparently is not shy about telling a room full of press that he and his colleagues do not have a very high opinion of the mental aptitude of our national legislators.
It is common tactic for elitists to question the inteligence of those who disagree with them, that way they don't have to consider that the other side may have made a better case.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2006-07-17 12:53
There wasn't much new ground broken in the hyped debate between Google's Vint Cerf, "co-father of the Internet" and Dave Farber, Cerf's former Professor and thus a "grandfather of the Internet."
I should have made the connection before, but his experience at MCI, one of the largest failed CLECs, must have been highly formative for him before he moved to Google. It sounded to me that Mr. Cerf sees NN as partly re-fighting the whole CLEC-unbundling issue -- or righting what he believes as a past wrong. It also sounded to me that his head is still in an intra-modal re-seller competition mindset and that he is not a believer in emerging inter-modal competition -- despite the evidence.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2006-07-14 17:27
My friend Chris Libertelli goaded me into explaining why NN cold lead to price regulation which I do with six points below.
UNE-P and NN both overreached!
Both UNE-P and NN were/are huge regulatory over-reaching attempts.
From the beginning, your side has irresponsibly argued for an all encompassing concept of NN and drafted legislation that is hugely over-reaching. What do I mean?