You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2008-06-16 12:54
The reality of market pricing for Internet usage is naturally gaining more attention.
The big economic takeaway here is that in a free market Internet, where users have very different demand: i.e. needs, wants and means for speed, usage, mobility, latency, immediacy, reliablity, flexibility and other attributes -- suppliers (ISPs, application providers and content providers) must have the freedom to innovate, experiment and provide a diversity of choices, at a diversity of prices in order to meet the diversity of demand from users.
The big political takeaway here is that Internet "fairness" is not legislated/regulated net neutrality or a one-tier Internet where all bits must be treated the same and where light Internet bandwidth users must subsidize heavy Internet users -- but real and practical Internet fairness comes from users paying their way, paying for what they use above a certain amount and not expecting others to subsidize one's extreme bandwidth usage.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2008-05-15 18:01
The 2008 World Competitiveness Yearbook just came out and the U.S. is ranked #1 in world competitiveness again -- for the fourteenth year in a row.
Bottom line: Pro net neutrality and pro-regulation proponents love to jump on isolated data or studies like the OECD broadband rankings to justify a reversal of free-market competition policies in favor of more command and control government industrial policies.
However, facts are pesky things.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-05-06 18:34
I have to admit that I was surprised by all the back-pedaling and calculated retreat by net neutrality proponents at the House Internet Subcommittee hearing on Chairman Markey's net neutrality bill HR5353.
Net neutrality proponents were clearly on the defensive, proactively responding to criticisms of the bill and not spending much time touting its benefits.
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.