The wonderful lesson of this article is that the only constant in life is change.
The article is replete with real life examples with how deals and visions of the future -- made sense at one time -- but "changed" or evolved with the evolution of the Internet, innovation and changing corporate fortunes.
The policy lesson from this illuminating article is that it spotlights the complete folly of trying to pass a net neutrality law which would freeze the current architecture and competitive state of play -- permanently.
Not only is it nonsensical to get in the way of the Internet's constant and dynamic evolution, but it exposes the human folly of being certain about what the future holds.
This insightful article shows how some of the best minds can't anticpate all of the unexpected twists and turns the Internet economy can and does take.
The article also explains the AT&T-Yahoo pact from 2001 which gave Yahoo the "exclusive" to be SBC/AT&T's default webpage and search engine.
I continue to be amazed with how many people have fallen for the manipulative NN sloganeering of "Internet Freedom" and just aren't thinking.
I fully grasp the surface branding appeal of "Internet freedom" because everyone has it now and cherishes it.
What I just don't get is the nonsensical logic behind the pro net neutrality case that we somehow get more freedom by restricting freedom.
Doesn't freedom beget freedom?
Doesn't limiting freedom beget less freedom?
Where freedom comes from in our country is our constitution, which ensures the ultimate power is with the people and which also tremendously limits the power of Government in a very wide variety of ways. Our Founding Fathers were truly brilliant.
Be sure to watch the new short video on NN on YouTube by CEI.
It's value is succinct clarity of thought.
That is very rare these days and even rarer in the debate over net neutrality.
We admire and tip our hat to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which like Netcompetition.org, is an organization dedicated to advancing free enterprise and limited government.
For those looking for hefty substance in understanding the economic impacts of net regulation, I strongly recommend the Phoenix Center's new Policy Paper No. 28, Network Neutrality and Foreclosing Market Exchange: a Transaction Cost Analysis."
It is the best serious economic analysis I have seen to date in explaining how government interference in the broadband marketplace would backfire on the consumer in many harmful ways.
While NN has been an effective bumper sticker campaign, it is embarassingly devoid of analysis or justification that the legislative language will actually deliver what it's proponents claim it will deliver.
Why the Phoenix paper is so useful in this debate is it substantively explains how net regulation prohibitions on commerce negatively affect consumer prices, benefits and choices.
In laymans terms, this policy paper explains that when the law interferes with the free market and tilts the playing field to advantage one side, the online giants, it enables the online giants to shift their costs onto the backs of the consumer, while also prohibiting the market from dynamically responding in ways that would benefit the consumer with innovation or lower prices -- a classic double whammy on consumers.
The big take away from this paper is that net regulation of the type in proposed legislation, economically favors the online giants at the expense of consumers.
This paper also helps expose the biggest scam in the Net Neutrality debate, that net regulation benefits consumers.
This morning the PrecursorBlog server of NetCompetition.org was hit and shut down for the day by a targeted and malicious denial-of-service attack.
Net neutrality proponents profess to oppose the "blocking, degrading, or impairing" of any Internet content. They also profess to cherish and want to protect the First Amendment of the Internet -- free speech.
I want to believe that Moveon.org's SaveTheInterent and FreePress had nothing to do with this attack.
I respectfully ask them to publicly denounce this malicious act as the antithesis of their vision for a free, open and democratic Internet.
Web creator Sir Timothy Berners-Lee predictably testified before the House Telecom Subcommittee yesterday. According to Comm Daily today, he said that "the key to web growth is "separation of layers" between browser and server, requiring engineers and legislators "get out of the way" and let others devleop innovative Web Protocols." (Sir Berners-Lee quotes in italics)
I wholeheartedly agree legislators should get out of the way, but why engineers?
Don't engineers innovate and invent?
What troubles me with the net regulation proponent view is this presumption that innovation can only come from software people or code writers not engineers of people involved in networking or infrastructure.
It is particularly timely today given that House Telecom Subcommittee Chairman Markey is starting his series of net regulation hearings today by hearing from the inventor of the World Wide Web, a leading supporter of NN.
It is also timely because CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference starts today in Washington DC; I will be speaking on their Internet panel on Saturday morning.
The purpose of this commentary is to challenge head on Congressional Democrats' attempt to revise Internet history for political purposes and manufacture a "broadband crisis" where none exists.
Professor Lessig makes the case for NOT selling valuable spectrum to the highest bidder (like the law requires to lessen the budget deficit and reward taxpayers) and argues that our government should "set off large swaths of spectrum for unlicensed use."
Professor Lessig very curiously tries to use "hot dog rights" as an analogy to make his cerebral point:
"Imagine the government nationalized the hotdog market, and then sold to the highest bidder the “right to sell hotdogs� at in a particular place for a particular period of time. These rights — the right to sell hotdogs — could be structured to be a kind of property. The market would thus allocate them to the highest valued use. And the initial sale would raise lots of money for the federal treasury. Are you in favor of that? And if not, then why are you in favor of spectrum auctions?"
Excuse me Professor Lessig. I have my hand up in the back with a puzzled look on my face. I am in favor of analogies that make some sense.
What do "hot dogs" have to do wth spectrum?
Are hot dogs able to be used to communicate, to broadcast, or to access the Internet?
Would businesses pay billions for the right to sell hot dogs when they could sell other food?
Could you not sell other food or services, if you did not have the national rights to sell hot dogs?
Would Congress and a regulatory body care to sell rights to sell hot dogs?
Can you put catsup, mustard, chili, cheese or onions on spectrum?
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.
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."
Hal is right. Net neutrality would discourage anyone from improving or innovating or trying to meet the unique needs of different sets of users.
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.
Both Paul Misener of Amazon and Tod Cohen of eBay agreed on their second day panel that competition won't solve this potential problem.
Tod Cohen of eBay said that even if their were 4-5 competitors in the broadband market there would still be an incentive to discriminate.
Wow. Now we really know what we are up against.
Supposed capitalists, Amazon and eBay don't believe in or trust free markets any more!
They are saying that Congress should pass a law regardless of how much broadband competition there is or will be.
This is classic industrial policy think, which is defeat your future competitors in Washington, while they are still in the crib.
It is also more predatory than anything any broadband provider has done.
Under their logic all duopolies should be regulated preemptively before they do the things that all businesses have deep lurking in their hearts -- make profits...
Then the government should rugulate the Intel-AMD chip duopoly, the Microsoft operating system monopoly, the Cisco-Juniper router duopoly, the Google-Yahoo search duopoly, the Giant Foods- Safeway grocery duopoly and while they are at it they could preemptively regulate the eBay-Amazon retail ecommerce duopoly!
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.
