Microsoft

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.

ClearWire's IPO today raised $600m to build out a nationwide broadband WiMax network. This is in addition to the $600m that Intel Capital invested in ClearWire last July. This is in addition to ClearWire's backing by billionaire Craig McCaw, the leading American wireless entrepreneur and pioneer.

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.

Kudos to Microsoft for finally making a high profile challenge to Google's "cavalier" approach to copyright as reported in the lead story of the FT and in the WSJ today. It's about time that Microsoft figured out that a key element of Google's phenomenal success is simply that Google does not play by the same rules as other law-abiding companies.

• Google cheats. And Google justifies cheating by claiming their cheating benefits the masses.  
• Most recognize this twisted morality as "the ends justify the means."
• Google's motto is the double negative "don't be evil."
• Google has adopted an almost messianic mission to liberate all the world's information from the bondages of private ownership for the benefit of the masses.
• Specifically, "Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."
• Google self-deputized itself for this world mission.

Under what authority does Google operate in carrying out its corporate mission?

• Does Google respect U.S. property law? International law? Common law?
• Or does Google-ism redefine these pedestrian legal restrictions of small-minded people and declare to the world that information is free and should be universally accessible to all people?  

Google cheats. and cheating is core to Google's long term business model. Let's review the evidence of Google's cheating:

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.

Be sure to read my commentary today in the Washington Times "America's Unique Internet Success."

• 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.

House Telecom Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-MA) said in the Boston Globe today  that Sir Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, will testify on "the future of the Internet" on Thursday.

• Sir Berners-Lee is a strong supporter of Chairman Markey's highly-regulatory approach to Net Neutrality.
• It also sounds like Sir Berners-Lee will be the only witness at this important initial hearing on this important issue.

The open question is: will Chairman Markey allow free and open "competition" of views on what is best for "the future of the Internet" in the best of the "open democratic tradition of the Internet?" 

I had to flag Professor Lessig's curious February 14th  post and video lecture on "Internet Policy -- Spectrum Deregulation."

• 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 hotdogsâ€? 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.