You are here

FCC

NN: Holding their breath until they turn blue?

I thought neutrality-ites believed it is urgent for Congress to pass NN legislation to overrule the FCC's currently operative ruling that DSL is an unregulated information service.  On SavetheInternet.org website it says: "If Congress doesn't take action now to implement meaningful Net Neutrality provisions, the future of the Internet is at risk."  Itsournet.org's website says: "If Congress does not put these protections back soon, it could be a lot harder to reach your church or school, your local businesses or online communities that you care about." 

NN's selective quoting

I continue to be amazed that the neutrality-ites are unwilling to quote AT&T Chairman Whitacre's CURRENT statements on NN. But that would require them to be forthright and that would undermine their cause...

At NARUC, the state regulators conference, Whitacre said according to Communications Daily today, that: "We're not going to block anybody, but we want to offer the right to offer something better. Some companies want us to be a big dumb pipe that keeps getting bigger and bigger for free."

Neutrality-ites love to quote only a 2005 Business Week article to get people riled up, but they conveniently and selectively ignore all the official remarks the AT&T Chairman has made about NN since, which have made crystal clear AT&T has no desire to block or degrade anyone, but that it certainly wants to invest in a better faster Internet and get compensated for that value added service.

Fully disclose Google's bandwidth bill and usage!

Savetheinternet.org and techdirt are asking handsofftheinternet.org's to pay for Google's bandwidth bill because they allege the op-ed is fact challenged. They just might be on the right track for once. The seem to be proposing that people disclose what they pay for bandwidth.  What is Google's actual bandwidth bill and bandwidth usage? Below is the comment I posted in response to savetheinternet.org's cheap shot at McCurry for standing up to "Internet bullies" in his latest op-ed.  I disclose the costs of my bandwidth and challenge the online giants to do so as well.

FCC says Satellite broadband is most widely available broadband alternative

An inconvenient truth for those neutrality-ites alleging a broadband duopoly is found on page 4, of the FCC's Broadband competition report, is the following quote:

"The most widely reported technologies by this measure [availability by zip code], were satellite (with at least some presence reported in 88% of zip codes. This compares favorably to DSL which is reported in 82% of zip codes and cable modems which is reported in 57% of zip codes."

Verizon's big wireless broadband adds: no DSL/Cable duopoly

As I flagged in my blog post on the FCC broadband competition report last week, mobile wireless broadband is growing hyper fast, so fast that over one out of three new high-speed additions, is not DSL or cable, but wireless broadband.

Yesterday, Verizon in its quarterly earnings report added more information supporting the fast growth of this increasingly competitive alternative. Verizon reported that in the last year, it has added 10 million new broadband-capable wireless devices, laptop aircards, EVDo enabled Treos and Blackberries. By any measure this is very fast growth and proves the competitive dynamism of the broadband marketplace, and undermines calls for net neutrality that claim insufficient competition.  

Special Interests get VA Sen. Candidate backing NN

VA Senate Democratic candidate, Jim Webb, recently endorsed NN. The text of his statement, which could easily have been drafted verbatim by moveon.org --  is included below.  

I ask Mr. Webb whether anyone has explained to him the "Reverse Robin Hood" effect of NN before he endorsed NN? Does Mr. Webb understand that NN is average-pricing and one-size fits- all offerings?
 
Average pricing means that lower-than-average bandwidth users, like pensioners on fixed incomes, must pay above-average prices for bandwidth to subsidize more well -off high-end bandwidth users? How does such a special interest gift, corporate welfare for the online giants, square with traditional Democratic values of really looking out for the "little guy?" 

CNET's conflict of interest obligates equal time

This post was the 434th comment to CNET Molly Wood's editorial blasting my NPR Morning edition commentary opposing Net neutrality. I appropriately bring to CNET's attention that they are not entirely disinterested corporate parties to the NN debate and should be more upfront about fully disclosing their potential financial conllict of interest. By the way, I have testified as an expert witness before both the Senate Commerce Committee and the House Financial Services Committee on the issue of conflicts of interest. I generally can spot a conflict of interest when I see one.

Why NN average-pricing is slop for dotcom bandwidth hogs -- soouie!

What Net neutrality is really about is average-pricing. Neutrality-ites have framed the debate around fairness to Internet websites, not fairness to Internet users. They are not one-in-the-same as neutrality-ites want you to believe.  

Most people subscribe to the old adage "you get what you pay for."

With net neutrality average-pricing for bandwidth:
--low bandwidth users pay more for the less-than-average bandwidth they use; 
-- while high bandwidth users pay less for the above-average bandwidth they use. 

Microsoft: "end of PC era" means beginning of the regulated Internet era?

Ray Ozzie Chief Software Architect for Microsoft has declared the end of the PC or desktop era and has heralded in the "new era centered on the Internet." It is fascinating to me that Microsoft, one of the most fiercely competitive companies the planet has ever known, has chosen a public policy path of Net Neutrality, which asks the government to:
-- protect Microsoft from competitive broadband commercial practices;
-- give Microsoft average-pricing so Microsoft's above-average bandwidth usage can be subsidized by others less-than-average bandwidth usage; and

The "Search-opoly" is opposing mobile search competition

The WSJ article brilliantly exposes a powerful potential motive behind why the online giants want to apply net neutrality regulation to the competitive wireless industry.

 The WSJ article explains that Google and Yahoo could lose out to smaller search competitors in becoming the default search engine on the 2-3 inch screen of mobile handsets, because the much smaller handset screen is such a different animal than the much bigger PC screen where the search-opoly of Google and Yahoo dominate. the story explains that people use their mobile Internet access very differently than stationary PC search over DSL/Cable modem.

Pages

Q&A One Pager Debunking Net Neutrality Myths