About Scott Cleland
![]() |
|
You are hereQwestWelcome NextGenWeb.org to the free market blogoshpereSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-05-10 15:40Welcome to Portia Krebs a new blogger at NextGenWeb.org for USTelecom! I am delighted their will be another blogging voice in the debate promoting the continuation of a free market Internet that remains free of net regulation. I encourage other people to blog and enter the debate who understand that "Internet freedom" means much more than so called "net neutrality" and free speech, but also means: free market, free enterprise, freedom to be different, freedom of ownership, freedom to choose, freedom of diversity, and freedom of opportunity -- essentially economic freedoms that naturally flow from America's political freedoms! "National" broadband policy a stalking horse for regulating InternetSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-05-10 12:03Watch out when Big Government advocates call for a "national" anything!
Egads! A "national broadband plan" is a codeword for a 1970's-style government "industrial policy" where the government decides what technologies consumers get and which companies will succeed of fail.
My first big problem with this "national" thinking is that there is no national broadband problem.
My second big problem is Senator Rockefeller's call for a new "national" goal of 10Mbps broadband by 2010 and 100 Mbps by 2015. Excellent ACI study proves how net neutrality harms consumersSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-05-09 11:44Kudos to Steve Pociask of the American Consumer Institute on his excellent paper on: "Net Neutrality and the Effects on Consumers."
Steve's clear, insightful, and easy-to-read paper explains how net neutrality would harm consumers by: The Economist's global digital rankings differ from OECD's rankingsSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-05-08 17:39If you care about the reality of American competitiveness and innovation be sure to check out the recent Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) global digital rankings.
What's most interesting, is that this objective ranking by the respected Economist, does not show the negative broadband outlook or assessment of the US that the OECD ranking does.
So why is this EIU report important? Schwartz' brings adult supervision to Wu's sophomoric NN analysisSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-05-03 17:08It is always a joy to read clear thinking rigorous analysis. I have known and respected Marius Schwartz's mind and work for several years, and I am delighted that he brought the heft of his intellect and DOJ experience to the question of "wireless net neutrality" in his white paper: For anyone who cares about the merits or substance of net neutrality as a proposed public policy, it would be hard to find a better debunking of Columbia Law Professor Tim Wu's sophomoric and vacuous work on wireless net neutrality than Marius'. listen to Larry Irving's podcast on America's broadband challengesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-05-02 14:33I recommend listening to Larry Irving's, (President of the Internet Innovation Alliance) keynote at the Killer App expo that can be heard by podcast.
He makes a great point. It makes no sense to tax an engine of economic growth as mucha s we do. Great study debunking Wu's Wireless net neutrality scamSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-05-02 10:06I recommend a strong academic paper that debunks the sloppy thinking and analysis behind Columbia Professor Tim Wu's call for wireless net neutrality -- its by: Robert Hahn and Robert Litan of AEI/Brookings and Hal Singer of Criterion Economics.
What I like most about the study is that it is a systematic evisceration of the logic and evidence behind Mr. wu's call for wireless net neutrality. JeffersonNet...EdisonNet... How about NoRegulationNet?Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-04-25 14:47Curt Monash in his blog suggests a "third way" for net neutrality to go -- applying regulation to the "JeffersonNet" or "bandwidth-light" parts of the Internet while not applying it to the "EdisonNet," the more "communications-rich" applications where regulation would be an impediment.
With all due respect, the "middle way" thinking is seriously flawed because it assumes a compromise between views with equal merit.
In order to talk net neutrality compromise, net neutrality proponents have to make the case that they have legitimate concerns to begin with. Why not ask GAO to settle debate over validity of OECD broadband rankings?Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-04-25 10:55Listening to the House and Senate Democrats in yesterday's congressional hearings say "there can be no debate" "or dispute" that the U.S. is falling behind in broadband, when House and Senate Republicans, expert witnesses and the Administration were debating the validity of that very point directly before them, indicates that this "debatable point" is the exact type of "assessment of the facts" for which the Congress created the GAO to sort out. Congressional Democrats appear to be embracing the findings of the OECD on broadband as gospel when the OECD has obvious competitive motive to put EU countries in the best light and the U.S. in the worst light. Moveon.org 2nd largest PAC in 2006 -- the prime "mover" behind net neutralitySubmitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-04-24 10:44I always knew Moveon.org was a powerful political force, but I just learned how powerful -- Moveon.org was the second largest Political Action Committee (PAC) in the US in 2006, according to the Washington Post "In The Loop" column by Jeffery H. Birnbaum.
Moveon.org's political clout combined with its zealousness for promoting net neturality regulation and the front-loaded 2008 political process mean net neutrality will likely remain on the "techcom" political agenda as a key issue for the foreseeable future -- despite getting repudiated by the House, Senate, Supreme Court, FCC, FTC, NTIA, Maryland, Michigan to only name the most prominent forums that rejected regulating the Internet. Pages |