You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2008-04-28 11:04
Mr. Lee challenged Professor Lessig's assertion at the Stanford FCC hearing that network owners have the power to change the Internet's architecture.
Why his insightful analysis is so devastating to Professor Lessig's core assertion underlying the need for net neutrality legislation is that it exposes some "inconvenient truths" about the reality of trying to change the Internet's architecture:
I recommend you read his full post, it's brief, well-reasoned and fresh.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-04-22 18:37
The big surprise of the hearing was that Chairman Martin was a last minute witness. The Committee created a new first panel for just Chairman Martin, which ended up consuming about 60% of the allotted time for the whole hearing, and which was also the prime time when most of the Senators and press were in attendance. This surprise testimony practically relegated the other panel, which was expected to be the main event, to more of sideshow status.
Overall, this hearing was slightly more balanced than its House counterparts. Chairman Innouye continued his very measured and balanced approach, in that he said things that each side wanted to hear.
The real import of the hearing was two-fold:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-04-22 08:54
Be sure to read Dick Armey's succinct analysis and perspective on net neutrality in his op ed: "Spare the Net."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2008-04-21 17:55
Below is the full text of the letter I sent to all members of the Senate Commerce Committee and the Senate leadership questioning why of all times -- now -- for pushing net neutrality?
April 22, 2008
The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye
722 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-1102
ATTN: Telecom Legislative Assistant
Dear Chairman Inouye:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-04-09 10:55
Kudos to John Markoff of the New York Times for a excellent, informative, and balanced article about the ongoing debate over where the U.S. really ranks in the world on Internet/broadband infrastructure.
First, the article shares the news of the seventh annual World Economic Forum report produced by a French Business School which shows that the U.S. ranks 4th up from 7th last year and which contrasts with the more narrow OECD study that focuses on broadband penetration and shows the U.S. ranking lower and falling.
Second, what I most appreciated was that the article candidly explored that there are two opposing world views at work trying to use statistics and studies to promote their world views.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-04-04 14:48
Many have broadly swallowed Google's "spin" that Google really "won" by losing the 700Mhz auction -- without digesting the serious implications of Google's public admission.
So what's wrong with what Google did?
First and foremost, Google's flagrant manipulation of the auction rules and process fleeced the American taxpayer out of at least $7 billion, by my estimate.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-04-02 10:39
It was very welcome, but not surprising news, that FCC Chairman Martin and a majority of the FCC plan to deny eBay-Skype's petition to apply 1960's "Carterfone" monopoly regulations on today's wireless competitors.
This was not a close call. Carterfone regulations were appropriate forty years ago with a monopoly and no competition. However, dusting off ancient regulations for a bygone monopoly era have no business or relevance today.
The facts are that Americans enjoy more wireless competition than most any country in the world, enjoy the lowest or near lowest wireless prices in the world, and use about four times more wireless minutes than our european counterparts, because of the dramatically lower prices -- all per the American Consumer Institute.
The Skype petition is an excellent evidence that the net neutrality movement does not believe in competition policy or a free market Internet, but believe in a government managed Internet.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-04-01 10:50
Despite Japan having some of the fastest and cheapest broadband in the world, they still have to worry about network congestion and need to manage their networks and shape traffic, according to Adam Peake, a fellow at the International University of Japan who spoke yesterday at the Freedom to Connect Conference.
The takeaway here is that many in the net neutrality movement maintain that there is no need to manage the network if providers would just add more capacity.
Peake also explained that there is a pernicious p-2-p program called Winny, which is a major culprit in the network congestion and which is near universally reviled because it is one of those pernicious p-2-p programs that give all p-2-p a bad name because the protocol routinely makes the private content on users' hard drives available for identity theives and fraudsters.
How redefining broadband's lowest speed could be anti-competition & undermine universal broadband availabilitySubmitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-03-14 18:41
I was surprised and concerned to read in Comm Daily today that the FCC's broadband data collection rulemaking "is expected to swap the FCC minimum speed for broadband -- 200 kbps -- for a tiered approach. The lowest tier would set 768 kbps as the minimum speed, an FCC source said."
How could changing the baseline minimum definition of what is broadband turn out to be anti-competition and undermine the universal availability of broadband?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-03-05 10:41
Proponents of a new National Broadband Strategy have two huge vulnerabilities:
Those powerful policy biases against: