You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-02-28 10:43
According to Comm Daily today, it appears as if Google is doing some major "bobbing and weaving" on its net neutrality stance. Google's top policy executive, Andrew Mclaughlin, at the Tech Policy Summit in San Jose, appeared to soften Google's hardline stance on net neutrality legislation, but did he really?
Let's examine what he is reported to have said that's new, and also what they have not said, which is important to seeing if they are just doing PR spin or have truly changed their position on net neutrality legislation.
First, what Mr. McLaughlin was reported to have said by Comm Daily today:
What they have not said is the most telling.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-02-27 10:39
House Telecom Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-MA) said in the Boston Globe today that Sir Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, will testify on "the future of the Internet" on Thursday.
The open question is: will Chairman Markey allow free and open "competition" of views on what is best for "the future of the Internet" in the best of the "open democratic tradition of the Internet?"
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Sun, 2007-02-25 22:55
I had to flag Professor Lessig's curious February 14th post and video lecture on "Internet Policy -- Spectrum Deregulation."
I'm sorry but I have been racking my brain to "imagine the government nationalized the hot dog market" like Professor Lessig asked me to. I could only think of Chavez in Venezuela. As hard as I tried, I couldn't seem to "get" the Professor's "hot dog" analogy.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Sun, 2007-02-25 22:06
Hal cuts to the quick in explaining "Under a net neutrality regime, if a broadband service provider offers prioritized delivery to one content provider, then it must offer the same level of service to all content providers free of charge."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-02-22 19:06
While at first glance it may not be obvious how the public policy debate over "net neutrality" affects the advertising sector -- it does -- and big time.
Let me explain "net neutrality" in the context of advertiser interests.
So why should advertisers care who wins? There are three big reasons why that cut right to the advertising sector's bottom-line and future.
First, companies that advertise very little want to regulate some of the advertising sector's absolutely best corporate clients.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-02-20 19:38
I had to flag for folks a seminal quote on net neutrality in the Washington Post article today "Neutrality on the Net gets high '08 Profile."
This obviously very sharp Democratic operative understands what's really going on.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-02-20 17:44
The common theme of net neutrality supporters is that there is not enough competition or competitive forces to prevent discrimination.
They assert a broadband duopoly even though the evidence and data don't support their assertions. This is one of the main reasons net neutrality has had so little success in forums where substance, evidence and proof matter.
Last week at the FTC workshop, Amazon and eBay took this competitive discussion to a whole new level of la la land.
Amazon and eBay are no longer for free markets, but for Big Government industrial policy and European style socialism with them as the designated online national champions.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-02-19 23:15
It looks like some national net neutrality proponents groups have suckered some well-intentioned, but unsuspecting Maryland delegates into sacraficing Maryland consumers as pawns in their national chess strategy over net neutrality. Maryland consumers deserve much better.
I'll bet the national activists that sold this fraudulent bill of goods to the unsuspecting state delegates, only told their unsubstantiated side of the story -- ill serving Maryland consumers and lawmakers in the process.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-02-16 14:13
Qualcomm's MediaFlo subsidiary has a network innovation and will soon have a commercial offering that will make it easier to broadcast TV content to mobile phones.
Qualcomm reportedly is spending about $800m in risk capital to gain spectrum and build a mobile broadcast network for cellphones that will be able to reach about 100 million potential users in the U.S. by mid-year.
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?