You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-10-09 10:59
Google's long rumored Google phone
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-10-04 12:05
The Google blog continues to essentially argue: what's good for Google is good for America and consumers. We have all heard that self-serving hubris and bunk before...
Let's unpack the hubris and deception behind these assertions.
Given Google's assault on the supposed failures of the current system, it is important to review the facts of what the existing competitive model actually has produced for American consumers.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-10-03 13:10
Someone needs to call the SaveTheInternet/FreePress/net neutrality crowd on their outrageous hypocrisy in politically claiming that being for "net neutrality" is being for more "free speech" protections.
When the SaveTheInternet organization and their net neutrality allies were offered very specific legislative language that would explicitly protect "free speech'' on the Internet -- they actively blocked it from passage in the Senate Commerce Committee in August of 2006 and from it passing into law last Congress.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-10-02 10:58
The Wall Street Journal's article today: "It's creators call Internet outdated, offer remedies" offers some powerful insights for those following the net neutrality debate and who care about promoting innovation.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-09-27 09:44
Senator Kerry's recent echoing of the call for a "National Broadband Strategy" by House Telecom Chairman Markey and FCC Commissioner Copps -- is really a slick coordinated bicameral campaign to reverse current national communications competition policy and replace it with a Government industrial policy.
Calling for a "National Broadband Strategy" implies we don't have one when we do -- and it is the law of the land -- the 1996 Telecom Act -- and it was supported by over 95% of Democrats and Republicans when it passed during the Clinton administration -- and by the way it is working.
What's wrong with that national broadband strategy?
What's wrong with the progress and achievement of that strategy to date?
Lets review the facts, not the spin that those promoting a new industrial policy cannot support with facts.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-09-21 11:38
Reed Hundt's Frontline Wireless is proposing more changes to the FCC's 700 MHz auction rules upon reconsiderataion -- so watch your wallet!
Per today's Comm Daily:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-09-20 10:20
It seems the "pixie dust" of "free" municipal wifi isn't so "magical" after all.
To quote one of my conservative heroes, the late great Milton Friedman, "there is no free lunch."
Bottomline: What I hope cities take away from this painful lesson is what they were taught when they were young: "if it looks too good to be true, it is."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-09-14 18:15
I am on a Broadband Policy panel on Monday at 4:45 at the Future of Music Summit with a couple of the lead folks who champion net neutrality: Professor Tim Wu, who coined the term, and Ben Scott, of Free Press who has slickly popularized it in close coordination with Moveon.org.
Congress and the FCC are currently working a series of initiatives designed to revise the telecommunications regulatory framework, with everything from spectrum reform, to broadband deployment, to network neutrality on the table. How will proposed revisions impact musicians, citizens and technologists? How does broadband policy intersect with concerns about protecting intellectual property? What would a pro-musician Telecom Act look like?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-09-11 18:05
If you missed The Washington Post's Steve Pearlstein's incisive and on point critique of how the campaign for net neutrality has morphed, it surely deserves a read -- its short.
See the header "Whiny Techies II" ("Whiny Techies I" is funny too.)
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-09-07 18:10
Some folks have no shame.