You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-04-26 15:56
I listened in to SaveTheInternet's conference call with reporters in celebration of their one year anniversary.
Senator Dorgan (D-ND) author of the pending Dorgan-Snowe Bill was the keynote and star.
Craig Newmark was second to speak and he asserted everyone he knew was for NN. (I guess we should give up now.)
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-04-25 14:47
Curt Monash in his blog suggests a "third way" for net neutrality to go -- applying regulation to the "JeffersonNet" or "bandwidth-light" parts of the Internet while not applying it to the "EdisonNet," the more "communications-rich" applications where regulation would be an impediment.
With all due respect, the "middle way" thinking is seriously flawed because it assumes a compromise between views with equal merit.
In order to talk net neutrality compromise, net neutrality proponents have to make the case that they have legitimate concerns to begin with.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-04-25 10:55
Listening to the House and Senate Democrats in yesterday's congressional hearings say "there can be no debate" "or dispute" that the U.S. is falling behind in broadband, when House and Senate Republicans, expert witnesses and the Administration were debating the validity of that very point directly before them, indicates that this "debatable point" is the exact type of "assessment of the facts" for which the Congress created the GAO to sort out.
Congressional Democrats appear to be embracing the findings of the OECD on broadband as gospel when the OECD has obvious competitive motive to put EU countries in the best light and the U.S. in the worst light.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-04-24 10:44
I always knew Moveon.org was a powerful political force, but I just learned how powerful -- Moveon.org was the second largest Political Action Committee (PAC) in the US in 2006, according to the Washington Post "In The Loop" column by Jeffery H. Birnbaum.
Moveon.org's political clout combined with its zealousness for promoting net neturality regulation and the front-loaded 2008 political process mean net neutrality will likely remain on the "techcom" political agenda as a key issue for the foreseeable future -- despite getting repudiated by the House, Senate, Supreme Court, FCC, FTC, NTIA, Maryland, Michigan to only name the most prominent forums that rejected regulating the Internet.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-04-23 11:02
It is very interesting and ironic that when Former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt was at the FCC he strongly advocated that "Spectrum Flexibility will Promote Competition and the Public Interest" in an article in IEEE magazine with Greg Rosston in the December 1995 issue.
While I often disagreed with then FCC Chairman Hundt when he diverted from promoting market-based competition by picking winners and losers through hyper-regulation, I must commend Mr. Hundt's logic and policy explained in detail in his IEEE monograph in 1995.
Ironically now, Mr. Hundt would financially benefit greatly, if the FCC rigs the 700 MHz auction to lower the value spectrum by requiring a license holder agree to net neutrality.
The primary impetus behind the 1993 Democratic Congress that passed the law requiring spectrum auctions is that the taxpayer was routinely being fleeced by the FCC granting spectrum by other processes than auctions.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-04-20 09:45
Google turned in another awe-inspring financial performance in 1Q07. Pick your news report for the basics. All you need to know is revenue growth was up 63%. Wow!
Let me translate some of the earnings call:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-04-17 11:01
Today's WSJ editorial page hits the free-market nail on the head once again in its lead editorial: "The Spectrum Game"; it's about the FCC's upcoming decision on how to auction the 700 MHz of spectrum that is considered by the market to be "the Riviera beachfront property" of all spectrum potentially available.
WSJ understands this is the most valuable spectrum the FCC has ever auctioned.
I hope the FCC is wise enough to see through this net neutrality spectrum scam, and not effectively bypass Congress' authority by effectively legislating corporate spectrum entitlements unauthorized by Congress.
To guard against charges that there is an-under-the-table transfer of billions of dollars due the American taxpayer under the law, the FCC needs to be completely transparent and upfront about the implications their decisions have on auction proceeds.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-04-16 13:59
The news of Google acquiring Double-Click prompted me to spend a good part of my weekend analyzing the competitive implications of this seminal proposed acquisition for the future of the Internet.
My analysis focused on answering the following key questions of interest:
Summary of my conclusions:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Sun, 2007-04-15 15:45
It seems that having ~90% gross proift margins, a $145b market capitalization, and one of the highest-flying stocks in the market is just not enough resources for Google.
Not surprisingly, Google CEO Eric Schimdt's has come up with yet another creative new answer for who should pay for upgrading Internet capacity for video -- the American taxpayer! Certainly not Google!
Cost avoidance and sticking it to the taxpayer is part of a pattern for Google.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-04-13 12:52
MultiChannel News has a great write up of a tough speech on net neutrality by David Cohen, Executive Vice President of Comcast.
Kudos to Mr. Cohen for taking the gloves off and saying what needs to be said.