You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2006-09-05 18:56
I did an hour radio interview today on mytechnologylawyer.com today, to give all the best arguments against net neutrality. It was refreshing to have a forum where the clear purpose was to hear the unvarnished anti-net neutrality view becuase they will hear the other side's unvarnished next week when they will host Itsournet.org, Tuesday September 12 at 1PM EST with four pro-net neutrality guests.
It was a very liberating forum as I was given the full time and free reign to lay down the detailed arguments of why NN is such a horrible public policy idea. In particular I was able to debunk in detail how the Internet has never been "neutral" and give a detailed rebuttal of the gross misrepresentation that there is a broadband duopoly or insufficient competition.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2006-09-01 11:44
Gotta love Daily Kos' indignance that Cable is running a very effective anti-net neutrality ad on their beloved Comedy Central show (that by the way has shilled for the NN cause and mercilessly spoofed Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens.)
How dare cable invade their hallowed neutral ground and horrors speak ill of their beloved net neutrality! It is blasphemy! There should be no cable industry free speech -- only politically-correct speech that agree with approved neutral-dogma!
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2006-08-31 15:31
I was interviewed on CNBC this AM on Verizon and Bell South dropping their planned new DSL fees in face of FCC pressure.
First, I said this was a political issue not a competitive one. In the politically-charged environment of pending telecom legislation, the companies made the political mistake of getting in the way of the FCC being able to take political credit for some consumers bills going down. The FCC, like any political animal, does not like "rain on their parade."
When the FCC ruled last year that DSL was an unregulated info service like cable (the decision that germinated the net neutrality issue politically) a side effect of that decision was to no longer require that DSL pay a $1-2 a month regulatory fee into the Universal Service fund.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2006-08-30 17:15
One of the most significant recent NN developments was the very detailed and cogent analysis and speech of the Federal Trade Commission Chairman Majoras last week. Why was it so significant?
First, it was the most comprehensive and forthcoming analyses of net neutrality by any of the three Federal enforcement authorities who's statutory job is to protect competition (FCC, DOJ and FTC). It is a very good proxy for where the FCC and DOJ are.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2006-08-29 15:31
After months of Google, Savetheinternet.org and itsournet.org warning ominously of the horrors of a "two-tiered Internet" where Americans might have to pay more to get more, it appears that Vint Cerf, Google's net neutrality evangelist, is finally conceding on their core argument -- saying "Noone objects to charging users more for faster access, Cerf said" according to Communications Daily August 17, 2006.
Huh!? I thought that was what the whole NN debate was about!? Could broadband providers charge more if they provided more? Thank you Mr. Cerf for saying broadband capitalism is now OK!
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2006-08-29 15:05
If you have not seen Cable's new, clear and effective ad opposing net neutrality --- you should click here its only 30 seconds long.
Its strength is its clarity. Despite all the confusing "mumbo jumbo," net neutrality is simply just a scheme to make the consumer pay for the online giants costs.
It's also a concise derivation of Netcompetition.org's first viral video that net neturality was really special interest legislation and "corporate welfare for dotcom billionaires" which has now been viewed on youtube over 4500 times.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2006-08-10 18:20
Common cause just listed me and netcompetition.org in their latest report: "Wolves in Sheep's Clothing, Part 2: More Telecom Industry front groupss and Astroturf."
This is a not-so-veiled attempt at intimidating free speech that Common Cause doesn't like because it does not fit their Big-Government-knows-best policy view.
I have fully disclosed who I work for on the site and in every one of the dozens of public forums in which I have debated net neutrality. Net competition is funded by broadband telecom, cable and wireless companies! It's no secret!
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2006-08-10 10:27
What bothers me most about net neutrality is the off-the-charts hubris of the neutr-elites that they are so sure they know better than anyone else what is best for the future of the Internet.
The neutr-elites think they know better than the collective wisdom of consumers in the marketplace, which make millions of individual decisions every day about what they want and what they don't.
The uninformed, knee-jerk neutr-elites know better than market forces, which provides consumers a constantly responding and evolving array of choices, rewards and risks to choose from.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2006-08-09 10:35
If the neutr-elites were truly honest and their real NN concern was market power and not reasserting government control over communications companies, they would have inserted a sunset trigger provision in either the Markey or Snowe-Dorgan NN bills, which then would have ended NN when “sufficient” competition emerged. Unfortunately both bills have no sunset, obviously envisioning net neutrality as a permanent policy that would never change no matter how many competitive alternatives consumers eventually enjoy. I believe this is because the core neutr-elites of Moveon.org, the Democratic “netroots” are virulently anti-business, and pro BIG government command and control.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2006-08-09 09:32
The WSJ editorial, "WiFi to the Max" was dead on today in connecting-the-dots that Sprint's $2.5b investment in a 4G WiMax wireless broadband market is loud repudiation of the "neutr-elites" allegation of a DSL-Cable "broadband duopoly."
Sprint's $2.5b WiMax investment is on top of the 3G wireless broadband investment Sprint has already made that is allowing it to offer wireless broadband currently to much of the country. It is on top of Verizon's successful wireless broadband rollout that serves 10 million new wireless broadband enabled customers in the last year alone. It is on top of AT&T's investment in wireless broadband that will be ramping in short order. It is on top of Intel's $600m investment in Clearwire's WiMax network, billionaire Craig McCaw's latest venture. This is on top of dozens of cities around the country investing in WiFi networks. This is on top of the current FCC auction which has DirecTV/Echostar putting $1b down payment down to bid on new wireless broadband spectrum, cable players putting down $600m, T-Mobile $600m, Verizon $500m, and AT&T $400m. The evidence of a big ramp-up in broadband competition is overwhelming!