You are here

More rebuttal of CNET Executive Editor's blast of my NPR commentary

Given that Mooly Woods, Executive Editor of CNET blasted my NPR commentary on NN but will not give me equal time to respond, I am sharing with you my rebuttals to her points that I had to post in her comment section.

Homefield advantage

Posted by Scott Cleland (See profile) - July 7, 2006 1:55 PM PDT

Thank you for reply. I am not surprised that you chose the least distribution option for our back and forth, it suggests you would rather not have your general readership, hear the other side or the rebuttal of your position. I respectfully repeat that if you think this is an important issue and you really want a fair airing of it, I request again that you have a podcast debate on this or at least give me the opportunity to do a CNET guest column or interview to balance your view.

For now we will play by your rules, on your homefield, with your cheering section for moral support.

Over the next few workdays, as I have time, I will gladly respond to your points one by one.

After your barrage on how false, cheap and manipulative and insulting my three minute NPR commentary was, (BTY NPR requested it and Craig of Craigslist gave the other side. What is it about CNET's journalistic code that doesn't give balanced coverage like NPR?) which you then asserted that you do not believe that we have enough competition.

Is this a new Molly Woods competitive test?

The expert agencies, the FCC and DOJ antitrust division disagree with your conclusion. They have the factual evidence, the expertise and the legal authority to make that determination. Your beef is with them not me, the broadband companies or Congress. The burden of proof is on you to prove your assertion that there is insufficient competition to warrant NN regulation. If you can't make that case you have no case for more reg.

Your mention of megamergers shows your lack of understanding of antitrust law and competition. The reason the Bells have largely reassembled is that they were not the antitrust problem -- AT&T was broken up because of long distance violations. When they combine it is not a competitive problem because they are not direct competitors, it is what the experts call a "geograhic extension of a market." You must understand that intra-modal resale competition is what was proved unviable in the market and in court and that intermodal competition is what is succeeding now and which protects consumers from NN fears.

If you would like we can drill down some more on this point before we move on to rebutting your three main points. Your call, your forum. See you next week.

Q&A One Pager Debunking Net Neutrality Myths