You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-05-17 18:04
Calls by House Telecom Chairman Ed Markey and other Big Government proponents for better "broadband mapping" is simply a "trojan horse" for regulating the Internet. and more government intervention in the marketplace.
Mr. Markey knows that calling for better data is generally an easy way to build consensus around an issue while staying "under the radar."
Make no mistake about it, this is Chairman Markey's first step in a grander scheme to have Big government play a much bigger role in the Internet and the digital economy.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-05-16 14:06
I just rewatched the outstanding Fiber to the Home Council's video on the Internet Exaflood.
If SaveTheInternet and FreePress was truly interested in a free and open debate on net neutrality they would want to send this outstanding informational video out to their email blast list.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-05-14 13:10
I was shaking my head in disbelief when I read Comm Daily on Reed Hundt's interview on CSPAN's The Communicators series.
Excuse me? wireless monopolies?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-05-11 18:18
I stumbled upon some more powerful evidence that the SaveTheInternet coalition of 800+ organizations who back net neutrality -- are just special interests looking for a self-serving subsidy handout from the government.
I previously blogged on my theory that the 800+ organizations backing SaveTheInternet cynically know that their members are not really at risk on the Internet from "blocking" etc., but that their organization's cost structures are at risk because they have become addicted to subsidized cheap blast emails.
I suspect the other 800+ organizations in SaveTheInternet coalition have made the same self serving calculus, but love to hide behind the populist "human shield" of supposedly looking out for the American consumer.
Like any other special interest, these SaveTheInternet organizational supporters are lobbying for net neutrality for self-serving reasons, i.e. a law/regulation that would ensure their cost of email distribution would never go up. What a deal!
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-05-11 10:42
I wanted to be sure folks saw what Greg Moore, Executive Director of the National NAACP Voter Fund said recently on net neutrality in a commentary piece in the Asbury Park Press:
Extremely well said!
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-05-10 15:40
Welcome to Portia Krebs a new blogger at NextGenWeb.org for USTelecom!
I am delighted their will be another blogging voice in the debate promoting the continuation of a free market Internet that remains free of net regulation.
I encourage other people to blog and enter the debate who understand that "Internet freedom" means much more than so called "net neutrality" and free speech, but also means: free market, free enterprise, freedom to be different, freedom of ownership, freedom to choose, freedom of diversity, and freedom of opportunity -- essentially economic freedoms that naturally flow from America's political freedoms!
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-05-10 12:03
Watch out when Big Government advocates call for a "national" anything!
A "national broadband plan" is a codeword for a 1970's-style government "industrial policy" where the government decides what technologies consumers get and which companies will succeed of fail.
My first big problem with this "national" thinking is that there is no national broadband problem.
My second big problem is Senator Rockefeller's call for a new "national" goal of 10Mbps broadband by 2010 and 100 Mbps by 2015.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-05-09 11:44
Kudos to Steve Pociask of the American Consumer Institute on his excellent paper on: "Net Neutrality and the Effects on Consumers."
Steve's clear, insightful, and easy-to-read paper explains how net neutrality would harm consumers by:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-05-08 17:39
If you care about the reality of American competitiveness and innovation be sure to check out the recent Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) global digital rankings.
What's most interesting, is that this objective ranking by the respected Economist, does not show the negative broadband outlook or assessment of the US that the OECD ranking does.
So why is this EIU report important?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-05-03 17:08
It is always a joy to read clear thinking rigorous analysis. I have known and respected Marius Schwartz's mind and work for several years, and I am delighted that he brought the heft of his intellect and DOJ experience to the question of "wireless net neutrality" in his white paper:
For anyone who cares about the merits or substance of net neutrality as a proposed public policy, it would be hard to find a better debunking of Columbia Law Professor Tim Wu's sophomoric and vacuous work on wireless net neutrality than Marius'.