You are here
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:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-03-04 13:19
Enough of Net neutrality activists' hypocritical sanctimony over freedom, free speech and democracy! It is sickening.
Net neutrality activists claim to support freedom, free speech, and democracy, but they really don't in practice.
First, let's look at the recent activist whining from FreePress/SaveTheInternet about how the FCC network management forum at Harvard was somehow hijacked by Comcast sympathetic attendees or who these activists have derisively called "seat fillers."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2008-03-03 16:21
Why the Markey Net Neutrality Bill Would Regulate the Internet
H.R.5353 would alter the FCC’s priorities to put Internet regulation ahead of competition
Where the Markey Bill explicitly would regulate the Internet:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-02-26 19:14
One subject I was surprised was not discussed openly at the FCC's Harvard field hearing on: Broadband Network Managment Practices, was the U.S. Government's existing policy of "technology neutrality." (The policy is pasted at the end of this post. It comes from page 5 of the NTIA January 2008 report: Networked Nation: Broadband in America 2007. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/2008/NetworkedNationBroadbandinAmerica2007.pdf)
Why the consistent legal precedents of technology neutrality are so relevant to the FCC's investigation of the FreePress/Vuze petitions on Comcast's network management, is that big broadband providers like Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint (among others) have very different technologies that require very different network management approaches.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-02-22 17:31
Connected Nation's new report on the economic impact of pending broadband mapping bills shows how public/private partnerships could accelerate broadband deployment to all Americans and provide an estimated $134b direct economic stimulus per year for the nation.
Contrast this mainstream legislation to promote universal broadband, with the new fringe net neutrality legislation proposed by House Telecom Chairman Ed Markey.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-02-19 18:48