The Wireless Communications Association International (WCA) announced today that it has joined NetCompetition.org -- an e-forum to promote a debate on the merits of net neutrality regulation.
 
"With spectrum a scarce and expensive resource, it is imperative that wireless broadband providers remain free to manage their own networks" commented WCA President Andrew Kreig. "Net neutrality regulation would discourage innovation and investment in more competitive broadband choices to all Americans. Our member companies are investing heavily in WiMAX or other ‘4G’ types of next generation broadband competitive alternatives. Our companies are part of the competitive solution, not part of the regulatory problem."

In Eric Schmidt's letter to Google's AdWords customers last week, he talked about the need for a level playing field for all online competitors, and looking out for small and medium sized businesses. Yeah right. As long as those businesses aren't competing with Google! 
 
Does Google really want a level playing field? Doesn't seem that way, especially when you read today's article in the New York Times.

If you picked it up yet, check out today's B1 of the Wall Street Journal article, "Not So Neutral." 

Catch coverage of the debate, including a discussion of our net neutrality video in the article.  If you haven't seen the video, you can watch it on the home page of NETCompetition.org.

Tell your friends, everyone should see this video!

I will be debating net neutrality for two hours today on Pacifica radio an NPR affiliate. www.pacifica.org. about 100 stations nationally.

In DC, it will be on WPFW 89.3 FM from 10-12

During the first hour I will be chatting with Gigi Sohn of Public Knowledge, and the second hour Anthony Riddle will join the debate.

I invite everyone to listen in.

Billionaire-ness aside, Senators and Representatives generally view the informality of wearing jeans and tennis shoes on a lobbying visit to the Nation’s Capitol as disrespectful to both the institution, the process, and to them. Dressing like you don’t care what others think -- communicates that exact point.

Even billionaire wannabe, Anna Nicole Smith had the good sense to dress formally and respectfully when she visited Washington recently for her Supreme Court appearance on the legality of her potential inheritance.

The net neutrality crowd apparently has fallen into the common trap of “bubble thinking” that because everyone they talk to supports NN, everyone must surely see it that way. While blogging maybe the future, Washington and Congress have never been early adopters. Congress still communicates largely the old-fashioned way: in person, in meetings, over the phone, through hearings and briefings by experts and professionals, at special events or town meetings, and through personal letters and personalized emails.

Last Thursday, the House voted 269-152 against NN; in other words after getting deluged with NN emails, 64% of the people’s representatives voted against NN. How could that be? Well, a must-read Washington Post article from today has exposed some of the practical limits of e-politics.

• Jeffery Birnbaum, in his K Street Confidential column, explains that Congress believes it is effectively being spammed by groups pushing a variety of agendas.
• In response, Congress is erecting elaborate technical hoops to try and thwart what I call the political spammers from overwhelming their small constituent support staffs. Surprise. Surprise. Congress doesn’t like political spam any more than the average person likes spam or junk mail.

Horrors! How could anyone consider mass political emails…spam? Isn’t that the essence of e-democracy!  Where any online citizen can write their Representative and Senators, (and everyone else’s too) many times a day? And isn’t it particularly persuasive if lots and lots of different people and computer email programs all deluge Congress at once on the same topic? That will surely convince them!

Congress couldn’t have caught on yet that all those emails are free? Or could they have?

I am heartened that Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens’ newest draft of the communications bill did not change on Net Neutrality. That means the Chairman’s draft bill has very good language on net neutrality, i.e. that the FCC should study it to see if there are any real problems and report back to the Senate.

This current Senate language is even better than the acceptable House language passed last week. My real preference would be for no legislative reference to NN at all, since it is potentially the proverbial “camel’s nose under the tent.”