You are here Campaigns
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2006-07-12 10:38
Investors Business Daily reported today www.investors.com that it appears that Google and Yahoo have decided to pass on bidding for the next big FCC auction of wireless airwaves on August 9 th.
It is interesting to note that Google may have a back door interest in this wireless auction because they have an investment in Current Technologies, a broadband over powerlines provider owned by privately held Current Group, which does plan to bid on the auction. http://www.intellon.com/pdfs/googlethis.pdf
It is comical that the online giants: Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, eBay, and Amazon claim “market failure� and that broadband market is a dreaded “broadband duopoly� in need of regulation -- and yet when they are given a prime “free and open� competitive opportunity to buy spectrum to offer broadband themselves, they are declining. How can it be a duopoly when they are free and able to buy prime national broadband spectrum? When they can offer WiFi like Google plans in San Fran? When Google can invest in broadband over powerlines? When they could work with wireless broadband competitors? When they could work with Clearwire? (which Intel just invested $600m in, and whose CEO is on Google’s board.) Stop whining and start competing!
What this is really about is the online giants preferring a free lunch of government regulated bandwidth rather than having to spend money on broadband facilities like their broadband competitors must. Oh but that would lower these companies 80-90% gross profit margins! Can’t have that! It's much cheaper and self serving to regulate your competitors and shift most all your distribution costs to your competitors and the customer.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2006-07-12 09:14
I was very pleased to see that USA Today produced an excellent and balanced summary of both sides of the net neutrality debate. It can be done! The article did an outstanding job of summarizing both sides of the argument in the terms that each side uses.
I highlight the USA Today treatment in contrast to the Washington Post's recent coverage which I was highly critical of becuase it did not frame the article in a balanced way. The link to the post article is in my blog commentary.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2006-07-11 17:54
Attached is my latest rebuttal to CNET, don't miss my analogy to "CNET netrality" near the bottom of this post.
Rebuttal of point two! Need "CNET neutrality"
Posted by Scott Cleland (See profile) - July 11, 2006 1:39 PM PDT
Molly,
At the beginning of your article, where you bashed my NPR commentary as “egregiously false, unbelievably cheap and manipulative, and insultingly void of truth or fact… you also appeared to represent yourself as reluctant to regulate: I quote: “regulation of the Internet in any form seems scary, a bit hasty and potentially dangerous.” However, given your commentary in point two, it appears as if you were not fully candid about your reluctance to regulate. Your commentary in part two shows you have an alarming “hair trigger’ for heavy regulation.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2006-07-11 14:50
This is a continued CNET thread on why NN is a special low rate for online giants.
Logical analysis and proven expertise
Posted by Scott Cleland (See profile) - July 11, 2006 9:21 AM PDT
Molly,
Thank you for acknowledging that any legislation/regulation “needs to be carefully crafted” and that there can be “unintended consequences.” That is precisely why broadband providers are so concerned about net neutrality. The language is very sloppily drafted and very open-ended. They rightfully fear that bad, open-ended legislation in the wrong hands could be devastating. They learned the hard way in seeing what former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt did with clear de-regulatory language in the 1996 Telecom Act; he turned the intent on its head and pursued hyper regulation that took a decade of legal decisions to fix.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2006-07-10 13:53
I continue to post my rebuttals to the CNET Executuve Editor Molly Woods accusations of "lies"
Rebuttal to your Point One!
Posted by Scott Cleland (See profile) - July 10, 2006 9:24 AM PDT
Molly
I didn't see any reply to my last comment? Did I miss it?
Or is this not a debate, but just rebuttals of your article?
I trust you are still listening. It is hard to comprehensively respond in a one inch by 4 inch comment box.
On your charge that it is a lie that the NN legislation would give a special low, government set price for the bandwidth they use. I suggest you reread Snowe Dorgan after I have decoded them for you.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2006-07-10 13:41
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.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2006-07-10 10:02
The Financial Times report on "Hillary Clinton warms up Wall St." is highly relevant to the net neutrality debate, which has become surprisingly partisan with the Democrats on the Senate Commerce Committee voting as a block in support of the hyper-regulatory approach of the Snowe Dorgan bill. Previously, Sen. Clinton sent around a "Dear Colleague" letter in support of Snowe Dorgan.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2006-07-07 17:59
For anyone that missed the WSJ article on the lawsuits over Google's opulent refurbishing of their personal 767 airplane -- it was just too precious for words.
Apparently the Google founders were fighting over who would get the king-size bed in their private bedrooms on the airplane and who would get the hammock. Kid you not. Read the article.
My point here is that Google is the lead in asking for NN -- special interest legislation to protect Google from broadband competition and to get a special government regulated price terms and conditions -- when the rest of us poor saps that fly coach pay the full competitive price for our bandwidth.
NN is corporate welfare for dotcom billionaires that obviously don't need the subisidy.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2006-07-07 11:25
CNET Executive Editor, Molly Wood, blasted my NPR Morning Edition NN Commentary as "lies" in her column recently, trying to rebut my statements one by one in "Net Neutrality: Bring it on". http://www.cnet.com/4520-6033_1-6548559-1.html?tag=nl.e501
I replied in a comment to her post as soon as I learned of the personal attack. My comment/reply is found below in its entirety. I believe in CNET and Molly's sense of journalistic fairness and integrity that I will be given the opportunity to respond in detail to her assertions in a forum of their choosing.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2006-07-06 13:07
Today's New York Times article by Robert H. Frank is an excellent and clear explanation of how price discrimination best serves consumers. Mr. Frank is an economist at Cornell. One of his headlines says: "If price discrimination seems wrong, try taking another look."
The neutrality-ites have used buzz-word blackmail in Washington to try and make those who oppose NN as being "for discrimination." Discrimination is understandably a bad word politically becuase a lot of people have been unfairly and illegally discriminated against in our country's history and it still goes on today.
Pages
|
