You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-02-01 17:52
Evidence continues to mount that the broadband sector is increasingly competitive and that it is not the permanent cable/DSL "duopoly" that net neutrality supporters claim. The FCC just released its biannual report on high speed of broadband adoption and the new evidence showing more competition is powerful.
The most important takeaway from the FCC's report is that 58% or 7.9m of the 11.0m total broadband adds over the first six months of 2006 were wireless broadband -- NOT DSL or cable modem. That's not how a "permanent DSL/Cable duopoly" behaves -- is it?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-02-02 11:24
As expected proponents of net neutrality ignore facts that don't push their anti-business, big government point of view. When the FCC broadband report is replete with powerful evidence that broadband competition and penetration are increasing impressively, NN proponents don't like the message so they shoot the messenger.
Comm Daily today quoted a Public Knowledge spokesperson who said: the FCC numbers were "invalid" and that he wouldn't even "go there" what trends or developments the group sees in the report because it is "measuring a world that does not comport with reality."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-02-05 10:46
I was pleasantly surprised and very pleased that FCC Chairman Martin proactively released a proposed order that would reclassify wireless broadband as a Title I information service, as reported in today's Comm Daily. This order, which looks to have the support of the Republican majority, would continue to harmonize the regulatory treatment of all the major modes of broadband.
Why this is relevant to NN is that the expert agency overseeing competition in this market segment is concluding that there is sufficient competition to not require common carrier-like regulation.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-02-05 19:03
It seems asking the U.S. Congress for a huge corporate welfare gift in net neutrality legislation is not enough to satisfy Google's insatiable appetite for special interest gifts from the government.
Seems like this is a real pattern for Google.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-02-05 19:32
The evidence continues to pile up that Google is well on its way to achieving a 50% share of the search market, a significant antitrust threshold where a company is considered "dominant" and subject to "stricter scrutiny" for potential anti-competitive practices.
Microsoft's recent earnings call showed how badly Microsoft is doing in search.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-02-06 11:30
Wired has an interesting article on how Microsoft's new Vista operating system has had to make some tough and restrictive design calls that some could misread as "discriminatory".
Why this is relevant to net neutrality and Microsoft is that:
Why this is relevant to Microsoft's departure from ItsOurNet is that Microsoft evidently understands that regulation can be "unreasonable" and "unjust" as I explained in a previous post.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-02-06 11:38
I have attached the link to Esther Dyson's important interview on net neutrality.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-02-07 10:58
I really enjoyed the Washington Post article today "Google still searching for recognition in DC."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-02-07 11:51
Today's WSJ article: "MySpace pact with Google hits a snag" is a helpful reminder of the competition double standard and hypocrisy of net neutrality proponents Google and eBay.
Google the dominant search gatekeeper with 47% share and rising is the world's leading Internet access technology. They have a pact with Myspace, one of the fastest growing sites on the planet that would pay MySpace's News Corp. $900m for placing Google's search on MySpace.
Meanwhile, the pact is supposedly hung up because MySpace would still like to have a "discrimnation" deal with eBay too, where MySpace users could use post eBay auctions on their MySpace page. But Google only likes "discrimination" that is in its favor.
Listen to a priceless quote from the WSj article today:
How does Google explain their attempt to "block, degrade and impair" eBay's ability to easily reach Myspace consumers is not precisely the net neutrality "discrimination" problem that they want to ban?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-02-07 15:03
"GOOGLE'S HYPOCRITIC OATH"
As a 'Googler", I swear to fulfill to the best of my ability and judgement this covenant:
I will do harm to competitors while claiming to be their victim.
I will use double negatives like "don't be evil" to simulate sincerity and maintain 'plausible deniability.'
I will defend Google's legendary secrecy and lack of transparency by explaining secrecy is what keeps the Internet 'open'.
I will claim Google works for consumers even though all of Google's revenues come from advertisers.