You are here Amazon
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-03-05 19:11
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 Fri, 2008-02-29 18:13
The uber-communications-advisor of the left, Reed Hundt, gave an eyebrow-raising exclusive interview with Telephony-Online yesterday where he shared his views "on how to change broadband policy."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-02-19 12:39
The frantic spin-fest by supporters of House Telecom Chairman Ed Markey's new net neutrality bill was truly comical to watch. Let me share some of the more precious "spin" moments from last week.
Gigi Sohn, Founder of Public Knowledge, said in Comm Daily: "The new net neutrality bill has a better chance of passing than previous ones. What's different this year is the momentum leading up to it."
- Hmmmm. The new Markey bill, HR5353, which has been in the works for 13 months of this session has two co-sponsors, lets count them again, one...two..., and one of these two is retiring from Congress this year.
- In the Senate, the Dorgan-Snowe bill, an exact replica of the failed 2006 version, was introduced 13 months ago and has had near zero Senate consideration or attention, not even a hearing.
- Meanwhile back at the ranch... net neutrality regulation has been opposed by the FCC, FTC, the DOJ Antitrust Divsion and the three states that examined it: Michigan, Maryland, and Maine.
- Gigi may be technically correct that the issue indeed has "momentum," however, Gigi remains mum on the DIRECTION of that "momentum" -- as that would be unnecessary buzz-kill to share with people.
Ben Scott, the policy director of Moveon.org's FreePress arm, and Gigi Sohn were obviously speaking from the exact same approved talking points:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2008-02-14 12:07
Given the flurry of comments to the FCC on the FreePress petition on Comcast's network management due yesterday, I produced a new NetCompetition one-pager on Net Neutrality vs. Reasonable Network Management. I find the one-page format is useful to crystalize my thinking and boil my thoughts down most succinctly.
The primary conclusions in the one pager are:
- Net neutrality has an inherent bias against network management.
- Network Neutrality defines network management as discrimination.
- Net neutrality is not a "practical' principle; the word "reasonable" exists for a reason.
For those who don't want to use the one-page format or link above, I have copied the full text below:
Net Neutrality vs. Reasonable Network Management Net Neutrality has an inherent bias against network management.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-02-13 12:18
For Immediate Release
Contact: Scott Cleland
February 13, 2008
202-828-7800 Markey Net Neutrality Bill is “Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing”
WASHINGTON – Scott Cleland, chairman of NetCompetition.org, today released the following statement regarding Representative Ed Markey’s proposed net neutrality bill:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-02-13 00:01
The long-awaited new Net Neutrality bill is finally coming out from House Telecom Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey and Rep. Chip Pickering -- it's now called "The Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008."
After reviewing the draft version circulating among the media this evening, here are my initial takeaways on the new proposed legislation.
First, the proposed legislation attempts to rebrand the controversial "net neutrality" issue as "Internet Freedom" and "broadband policy."
- While most all of the net neutrality buzzwords still pepper the legislation (open, discrimination, blocking, degrading, etc.) conspicuously absent from the legislation is the well-known and never fully defined "net neutrality" brand.
- This is odd given all the effort Markey's supporters have put into branding this issue over the last two years.
- It is doubtful that most people on the Hill, in industry, and in the press will stop calling it Markey's new Net Neutrality bill.
Second, the bill's primary purpose is a bold attempt to reverse longstanding United States broadband policy by amending Title I of the 1934 Communications Act. This Markey bill would:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-01-30 19:17
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-01-29 22:50
For anyone wanting a good forward-looking perspective about the real challenges facing the Internet, look no further than the great new study "Estimating the Exaflood" by Bret Swanson and George Gilder.
Why this study is so timely and relevant is that the real problem facing the Internet is how to keep up with the exploding capacity demands of migrating to a video-driven Internet.
- The net neutrality utopians want to assume that bandwidth is infinite and free -- magically supplied by others for their p2p bandwidth gluttony -- with no costs to, or no affect on, others.
- The real world does not operate that way...
The report also is an important backdrop for why broadband networks must be allowed reasonable network management.
- Without massive investment and reasonable network management, the quality and the responsiveness of the Internet will suffer as the exaflood surges.
Pages
|