You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-02-16 11:11
The Wall Street Journal's lead editorial today: "Broadband Breakout" once again proves that they have a very knowlegable and sophisitcated understanding of the successes of broadband competition, deregulation, and competition and of the risks of "net neutrality" or Internet regulation
The Journal also picked up the point I made here in a previous blog that you have to look at the trajectory of competition, is it increasing?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-02-15 18:26
Tim Karr, the campaign director of Free Press that runs much of the SaveTheInternet effort, blogged a personal attack on me today, that I responded to on his blog.
It's not the first time I've been called names by people who wanted to discredit me and my analysis. Among others, you share the august company of the now-imprisoned Bernie Ebbers, who routinely derided me as the "idiot analyst" because I had his number in calling WorldCom "dead model walking" before anyone else in the country figured it out. He too was mistaken that name calling and intimidation could muzzle my views.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-02-15 10:51
The highlight of the FTC Broadband connectivity workshop was Phoenix' George Ford's evisceration of Tim Wu's Wireless net neutralty paper.
Mr. Ford also eviscerated Mr. Wu's recommendation to apply the monopoly Carterfone decision to the competitive wireless industry.
Mr. Wu's biggest mistake was submitting this paper before the FTC an organization well-known for its analytical rigor and expertise in the subject of competition.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-02-14 10:09
Overall I think the FTC has done a pretty good job of presenting a balanced view of the net neutrality issue. I commend them for calling the workshop "broadband connectivity competition policy." That is what the issue is all about-- in generic non-loaded terminology.
To be brief, I will highlight just what I thought was most noteworthy.
The distinguished practioner and academic, Fred Kahn, is always a joy to learn from. Besides making his main point that government should resist its propensity to meddle he was particularly critical of many people's use of the term "discrimination." As an economist, he was frustrated that people were using the term discriminatory just if it was differential. For those that don't know or understand economics or competition policy, Mr. Kahn stated simply -- if there is opportunity cost involved, its not discriminatory. What he reminded people of is that there are lots of legitimate economic, functional, and consumer welfare reasons why service and prices can and should be different.
Alan Davidson of Google clearly took a different tack than usual. He further retreated trying to respin Google's grandiose vision of net neutrality to be more "reasonable." He gave Google's blessing to the Internet continuing like it is -- charging differently for different speeds. He also gave America Google's permission to continuing caching and stopping denial of service attacks on the Internet. Thank you Google for your permission, it means so much.
Alan Davidson of Google then went on to say that Google only has a very "small" problem with just "one type" of router discrimination -- trying to appear reasonable. Unfortunately, to anyone that uderstands networks and competiton, his "reasonable" approach is about as "reasonable" as a doctor telling a patient that all the parts of their body are healthy but that he just needs to remove their "small" cerebellum.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-02-14 00:15
My core problems with Professor Tim Wu's white paper for the FTC on wireless net neutrality are with his disguised core assumptions.
First, it is clear from Mr. Wu's top two recommendations that Mr. Wu rejects U.S. competition policy and wireless competition policy as abject failures.
Mr. Wu should come clean and just say in a straightforward language what his White Paper strongly implies.
Second, Professor Wu analysis suffers from what I call the "perfection fallacy."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-02-09 18:50
Just got back from New York where Dan Brenner of NCTA and I faced off against NN proponents Professor Susan Crawford and Skype's Chris Libertelli.
It was a different format less washington-ish and more finance-ish given the audience and Eli Noam's deft moderating hand.
The quip of the day goes to my colleague Dan Brenner who summed up the net neutrality proponents views as "love the carriage, hate the carrier."
I framed my views in an MBA context, explaining what was really going on competitively and commercially in the NN debate.
The best question was how could one bridge the gulf between the polarized sides.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-02-09 18:01
I was delighted to see Mark Goldberg's post alerting us in America that the Canadian Government is opposed to embracing net neutrality regulation as well.
I love Mark's no apologies free market stance. He knows the Internet's growth, vitality, and diversity has come from free citizens, freely interacting and cooperating, free of government intervention. As he said, let freedom reign!
This is more evidence that the rest of the world is not pro-net neutrality despite the balderdash NN proponents toss around.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-02-08 15:58
What do the following three stories of the last few days have in common?
What's the common thread? Its obvious that the capacity of the Internet will have to increase exponentially and rapidly to handle the coming exponential increase in traffic generated by Internet video.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-02-06 11:38
I have attached the link to Esther Dyson's important interview on net neutrality.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-02-06 11:30
Wired has an interesting article on how Microsoft's new Vista operating system has had to make some tough and restrictive design calls that some could misread as "discriminatory".
Why this is relevant to net neutrality and Microsoft is that:
Why this is relevant to Microsoft's departure from ItsOurNet is that Microsoft evidently understands that regulation can be "unreasonable" and "unjust" as I explained in a previous post.