You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2009-04-06 16:35
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2009-04-02 12:59
There are two primary problems with eBay-Skype's attempt to get the Government to force competitive wireless providers to carry Skype's free communications app under the guise of wireless net neutrality and Internet openness; first, it is wildly uneconomic, and second, it is anti-competitive.
I. Skype's .2% Uneconomics
What is uneconomics? Just what the term implies, not economic, unsustainable... arbitrage.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2009-03-26 17:56
The big takeaway from this piece is that the fastest growing part of the U.S. broadband market, wireless, is strong, competitive and investing heavily -- which is very different than the state of non-communications industries in this economy.
For those who don't know Tom's impressive background... he most recently was one of the most senior advisors for Technology on President Obama's Transition Team, and he also is a past head of both the CTIA and the NCTA.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2009-03-17 13:34
A post by a Google policy analyst yesterday attempted to make the economic case for open access in the U.S. and suggested reasons why American infrastructure providers should embrace a mandated open network model. This proposed theory warrants a strong practical rebuttal. This proposed case for the economics of open access does not hold up to close scrutiny, because it has fatal flaws in both logic and economics.
I. The fatal flaw in logic in the case for the economics of open access:
Since the post assumes broadband markets everywhere are basically the same, it concludes that the open access experience in some European countries is relevant and applicable to the U.S. situation. The fatal flaw in logic here is the core assumption that European and U.S. markets are factually analogous. They are not. They are substantially different factually and structurally as I will explain in detail.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-09-09 09:15
Invited to speak at the ITIF forum on ITIF's white paper: "It's Time to End the Broadband Policy Wars" -- I so strongly disagreed with the framing bias of that white paper and the broadband policy debate in general that I decided I needed to counter it by writing my own white paper:
The abstract of my six page paper is below:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-07-30 13:24
Tim Wu's "OPEC 2.0" Op ed in the New York Times employs an embarrassingly inane analogy/metaphor. It also happens to be a factually bankrupt piece.
Why is Professor Wu's political analogy comparing bandwidth to energy, and a "bandwidth cartel" to OPEC -- embarrassingly inane?
In his op ed Professor Wu said: "In an information economy, the supply and price of bandwidth matters, in the way that oil prices matter: not just for gas stations, but for the whole economy."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2008-07-14 16:05
A recent study by the Leichtman Group found 70% of American broadband subscribers are very satisfied with their service, and relatively few are actually seeking faster Internet access.
Bottom line: The more one learns about the facts about what benefits American broadband consumers actually enjoy, and what they demand in the future, it is not what the Big Government folks claim.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-07-11 13:01
The FCC is reportedly considering putting "the burden on the network operator to prove that its network practices are reasonable" in its net neutrality proceeding on Comcast's network management, according to today's top story in Washington Internet Daily.
It would be supreme irony, if in the supposed name of "Internet Freedom," the FCC somehow ruled that network operators had no freedom to manage their private property, enter into contracts or pursue business without prior permission from the FCC.
Why would it be bad to put "the burden on the network operator to prove that its network practices are reasonable"?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2008-07-10 18:28
New facts from independent sources continue to undermine the political charge that the U.S. is falling behind in broadband, the thinly-veiled charge that Big Government proponents use to justify the need for a national broadband industrial policy to replace the current free-market national Internet policy.
Why are these new independent findings important?
First, broadband mobility is as important to Americans as stationary broadband speed.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2008-06-16 16:33
I wrote the anti-net neutrality argument and Professor Lowell Feldman wrote the pro-net neutrality argument for the ABI Telecom Technology Committee newsletter this month for the American Bankruptcy Institute:
Both articles are copied below, mine followed by Professor Feldman's:
Why Net Neutrality is Unnecessary and Bad Policy
Chairman, NetCompetition.org -- a net neutrality forum funded by broadband companies Washington D.C.