You are here Amazon
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-04-24 10:44
I 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, with its 3 million person email list, was the second-largest PAC with $27.7 million, after Emily's List at $34.1 million. Political MoneyLine was the cited source.
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.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-04-18 10:42
After almost a year of opposing quotes in articles on net neutrality, the NAM weekly radio show/podcast on business, finally afforded me the opportunity to debate Craig Newmark, the famous founder of Craig's List, one-on-one live.While
- While I was looking forward to hearing his best arguments for net neutrality, it became clear from the outset that he did not want to debate the issue, but wanted to try and discredit me and my personal views from as far back as 1999.
- It turned out to be a decent strategy for him because his knowledge of the issue was surprisingly thin and he obviously did not want to engage on the merits or facts of the issue
I said I was happy to discuss my current and past views with him because it was a tacit concession by him that the net neutrality side of the debate cannot win this debate on the merits and that their best chance is attacks on me as a leading spokesperson for the broadband sector on why the Internet should not be regulated.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-04-17 19:07
The people who still argue that the Internet is "neutral" have some explaining to do.
- They certainly don't want you to read the super Forbes cover story on Akamai: "Video Prophet: How Akamai survived the dot-com bust to thrive on speed."
- Check out these quotes from the article that drive home the point that the Internet has never been "neutral:"
- ..."Akamai's big idea is that by rewriting the Internet's basic rules--making some computers smarter and more equal than others--it can let the Net grow infinitely large without breaking down."...
- Horrors! Akamai is not treating bits equally! Someone call the Government!
-
..."a basic idea: Connect computers to the far reaches of the Net, then program them to communicate with one another to spot better routes for getting e-mails, Web pages and other packets to where they needed to go."...
-
..."Eventually they refined a business idea: a service that essentially would be the FedEx (nyse: FDX - news - people ) of the Internet. People could always trust the public Net to deliver their information cheaply. But others might be willing to pay Akamai a premium to deliver their content faster and more reliably..."
-
..."Every few months the algorithm writers in Cambridge inject better software into the global network to make it shrewder at picking routes for Internet traffic."...
I feel kinda bad that all those well-intentioned people that fell for the original slogan of "net neutrality" were suckered into assuming the Internet was "neutral" and needed to stay that way.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-04-17 11:01
Today's WSJ editorial page hits the free-market nail on the head once again in its lead editorial: "The Spectrum Game"; it's about the FCC's upcoming decision on how to auction the 700 MHz of spectrum that is considered by the market to be "the Riviera beachfront property" of all spectrum potentially available.
WSJ understands this is the most valuable spectrum the FCC has ever auctioned.
-
Naturally this valuable spectrum has spawned a cottage industry of policy entrepreneurs who want to figure out a way to divert the billions of dollars due the American taxpayer under the law -- to their companies' coffers.
-
They try to justify this multi-billion wealth transfer from the American taxpayer to companies by saying it would forward a "popular" net neutrality mandate, a social-engineering policy which Congress specifically rejected mandating only last year.
I hope the FCC is wise enough to see through this net neutrality spectrum scam, and not effectively bypass Congress' authority by effectively legislating corporate spectrum entitlements unauthorized by Congress.
To guard against charges that there is an-under-the-table transfer of billions of dollars due the American taxpayer under the law, the FCC needs to be completely transparent and upfront about the implications their decisions have on auction proceeds.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-04-13 12:52
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-04-12 14:11
As we recently modified and updated the Netcompetition website to make it even easier to use and work with, we decided to take the little ant fable flash on net neutrality we produced, and that has been exclusively on our site for awhile, and post it to YouTube in order to broaden the audience.
Enjoy!
It's only a 1 minute 40 second flash.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-04-12 13:52
There is a new updated net neutrality scareticker link to check out.
The bottom line here is that net neutrality is all about unsubstantiated allegations of problems.
- If net neutrality was in fact a real problem, wouldn't we have seen at least some evidence somewhere in the U.S. after 4 years and 2 months and counting?
- The FCC and the FTC have also both said they are vigilantly watching for any potential problems, but have not heard of any.
- What's there to be afraid of?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-04-11 13:21
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-04-11 10:24
The Politico ran a story April 9th called the "The Human Face of Net Neutrality" that grossly exagerates the "net roots" involvement on net neutrality.
The article implies that there is somehow a difference between the "Moveon.org net roots" and traditional broadband lobbying.
-
Give me a break.
-
Moveon.org's Free Press/SaveTheInternet is a very sophisticated Washington lobbying operation whose schtick is simulating "grass roots."
-
Lets be real.
-
Moveon.org is basically a 3 million person email list, where Moveon.org's Washington puppeteers pull the strings from the "top down" to "simulate" a "bottoms up" groundswell political movement on net neturality.
-
I don't buy it.
All this Politico article reports is that Moveon.org was able to "top down" organize dozens of meetings during recess with dozens of members on net neutrality.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-04-05 20:11
Pages
|