You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-03-26 16:32
An article in the Register on the first significant NN debate in the UK is a wonderful read.
It is always helpful to get the reaction of an outside perspective to cut to the quick of an issue.
I reccommend reading the whole article.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-03-26 10:48
The most important development for a free market Internet in the last several weeks was the FCC's 5-0 decision March 22nd to declare wireless broadband an unregulated information service.
Why is this a big deal?
Well done FCC! Great de-regulatory box out!
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-03-16 15:09
Only 40% of European Union homes have Internet access and only 16% have broadband, according to EC Consumer Protection Commissioner Meglena Kuneva who spoke yesterday at the Digital World Conference in Berlin.
NN proponents have tried to manufacture that there is a broadband crisis in the U.S. and that we are falling behind the rest of the world. It just isn't true.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-03-15 10:48
Net neutrality is not only a domestic issue but also a policy weapon some Eurocrats see as a way to undermine American competitiveness to Europe's advantage.
Why I wrote my commentary, "America's Unique Internet success" in the Washington Times a couple of weeks ago," was to drive home this important insight that America truly is unique when it comes to the Internet!
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-03-14 10:18
I read with interest and amusement Drew Clark's piece on GigaOM about "Is Google changing its position on Net neutrality?".
Drew Clark's piece in GigaOM is one of the better reports I've seen outlining the increasing disarray of the ItsOurNet coalition, the front group for online giants promoting net neutrality legislation.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-03-14 09:54
Dr. Bob Pepper of Cisco, and formerly a top policy advisor to several FCC Chairman, wrote an excellent opinion piece in TechNewsWorld: "Network Neutrality: Avoiding a Net Loss".
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-03-13 10:51
NN proponents in the U.S. have ignorantly been calling NN the "First Amendment of the Internet."
I really don't think NN proponents have thought this one through.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-03-12 16:28
A new net neutrality study by an associate professor of the Business School of the University of Florida, bases its entire approach and conclusions on two embarassingly and obviously wrong pillar assumptions.
What assumptions did they get wrong? and what is the big deal?
Lastly, when I was reading this embarrassingly-poorly researched and constructed paper, the image that came to mind was that of the great late commediene, Gilda Radner, playing one of the most famous characters of Saturday Night Live: "Rosanna Rosanna Danna."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-03-12 12:02
I wanted to connect the dots for folks of the national security relevance and implications of a net neutrality policy.
So what's the national security connection to NN?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Sun, 2007-03-11 17:34
Net neutrality proponents have been rebuffed ayet gain in trying to push NN at the state level.
NN state activists are now off to a predictable 0-2 start in trying to get the states to adopt what every entity at the Federal level has already rejected.
Why is the concept of Net Neutrality or net regulation 0-8 in official government forums of all types: legislative -- Federal and State, judicial and executive?
When responsible and accountable officials hear both sides of this debate in a fair and open forum -- with evidence and analysis of the merits, costs and benefits -- the right answer is consistently obvious -- if it isn't broke don't fix it!
This is the basic reason I organized NetCompetition.org last April as an eforum to encourage a free and open debate on the merits of the NN legislation.