You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-02-02 11:24
As expected proponents of net neutrality ignore facts that don't push their anti-business, big government point of view. When the FCC broadband report is replete with powerful evidence that broadband competition and penetration are increasing impressively, NN proponents don't like the message so they shoot the messenger.
Comm Daily today quoted a Public Knowledge spokesperson who said: the FCC numbers were "invalid" and that he wouldn't even "go there" what trends or developments the group sees in the report because it is "measuring a world that does not comport with reality."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-02-01 17:52
Evidence continues to mount that the broadband sector is increasingly competitive and that it is not the permanent cable/DSL "duopoly" that net neutrality supporters claim. The FCC just released its biannual report on high speed of broadband adoption and the new evidence showing more competition is powerful.
The most important takeaway from the FCC's report is that 58% or 7.9m of the 11.0m total broadband adds over the first six months of 2006 were wireless broadband -- NOT DSL or cable modem. That's not how a "permanent DSL/Cable duopoly" behaves -- is it?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-01-31 19:07
In my digging around to find out if Microsoft would be rejoining the ItsOurNet.com pro-net neutrality coalition, I have learned enough that strongly suggests to me that Microsoft may not be rejoining ItsOurNet now that the AT&T merger is complete.
Why I believe this is that I heard Microsoft is telling both sides behind-the-scenes -- the ItsOurNet crowd and the NetCompetition crowd -- the same story.
This take on Microsoft's new position makes sense to me for three reasons.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-01-31 18:25
Today I asked some of the folks that are members of ItsOurNet.com why their site has been down for a week. All tried to downplay the significance.
One said that they had changed vendors and that the site being down is not related to Microsoft withdrawing from ItsOurNet last fall. That rep went on to say that all the ItsOurnet folks are focused on influencing the grassroots, and that they will be working more closely with SaveTheInternet and FreePress because there may not be the need for both websites.
Another ItsOurNet member rep, Alan Davidson, Head of Google's Washington's office, told me today that he did not know why the website was down and said the fact that he didn't know about it being down for a week was evidence that Google is not the "puppet master" behind-the-scenes of the net neutrality movement that they are made out to be.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-01-29 18:54
I often visit ItsOurNet.org to see if they have anything new. I also look to see if Microsoft has rejoined ItsOurNet like they said they would after the close of the AT&T merger. Well the AT&T merger closed a month ago and still no word from Microsoft.)
What is new and interesting is that the Itsournet.org official web site has been down since at least last Thursday and maybe longer -- meaning you can't even get to their previously public website -- without a user name and a password. It ominously says "authorization required."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-01-25 14:02
Now that the Democratic-controlled Congress is back in full swing, and now that a lot of cards have been put on the table, its helpful to take stock of where we are on the net neutrality issue. Below I provide: an overview, a Senate outlook and a House outlook.
My bottom line analysis is that there is a very low liklihood of net neutrality legislation passing in this Congress, despite the hype.
Given that net net neutrality advocates really want a change in the law, they badly blew their golden opportunity last year to get net neutrality principles into law -- by wildly overplaying the moderately strong hand they had last year.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-01-24 18:51
I debated Gigi Sohn of Public Knowledge again today at a Media Institute luncheon and was really surprised at her candor in saying that the net neutrality conditions imposed on AT&T were "extortion" that she was happy to be a part of it.
While I have debated Gigi several times and respect her highly as a very capable advocate for her positions, I was troubled that she was so open that the net neutrality conditions imposed on AT&T were "extortion."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-01-23 19:09
There's new evidence today that Yahoo continues to stumble as Google continues to gain market share. Yahoo just announced meager 13% revenue growth for 4Q06, while Google announced at the end of the year that Google's revenue grew 86% during the same period. (That's over SIX times faster for those who care about those things!)
This is powerful additional confirmation that Google is quickly on path to reach 50% market share and beyond, a significant antitrust threshold of being considered "dominant" and warranting "stricter scrutiny" of its business practices for potential anticompetitive behavior. I explained the broader significance of this "dominant" threshold in my blog yesterday.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-01-22 19:12
An interesting and relevant antitrust milestone is coming for Google -- maybe as soon as this year -- Google is poised to pass the significant 50% market share "dominant" threshold in antitrust.
This is relevant because when Google exceeds 50% market share, the antitrust "rule of thumb" is that Google will be considered by antitrust authorities to be a "dominant" company.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-01-22 10:41
Bret Swanson in his WSJ editorial over the weekend "The Coming Exaflood" provides a real service to the net neutrality debate -- he forces the discussion to focus more on how we must deal with the coming explosion of demand for capacity on the Internet.
Net neutrality is a classic liberal big government idea that is all about trying to carve up the pie of today to be more fair, while assuming that somebody else will always make more pie for them to carve up.
The insanity of the net neutrality position is that its advocates assume future capacity will be there magically. That capacity will be there, only if there is a functioning marketplace that allows those private network operators that carry the traffic that comprises the Internet are able to earn a return on their investment in new Internet capacity. Otherwise, the Government will have to tax and spend to subsidize it. There is no free lunch.
The insanity of the online giants' position with ItsOurNet, is that they believe they should get a free ride and that the consumer should have to shoulder the entire cost of increasing the capacity of the Internet.