You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2010-12-01 14:54
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 1, 2010
NetCompetition Statement on FCC Proposed Open Internet Proceeding
WASHINGTON – Scott Cleland, Chairman of Netcompetition.org, released the following statement regarding the FCC’s proposed December 21st net neutrality proceeding.
· “The absence of any market failure or any proven problem to solve, the U.S.’ world leadership in facilities-based broadband competition, and the fragility of an economy not creating net job growth, calls for ongoing regulatory restraint and humility.”
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2010-12-02 19:03
Level 3's bogus claim that longstanding Internet peering arrangements are now somehow a Comcast "toll booth" (at the very moment the FCC is proposing net neutrality rules), exposes the real hidden agenda behind many who claim to want net neutrality and an open Internet -- and that's the expectation of a free lunch.
Unlike the consensus around a net neutrality principle, which means no anti-competitive blocking of content or applications of a users' choosing, or no unreasonable discrimination, there is fierce controversy and opposition to unwarranted, unjustified and uneconomic Title II Internet regulation, where Government forces some to absorb the network costs legitimately created by others.
FreePress and the Open Internet Coalition are criticizing the FCC Chairman's proposed Title I approach as fake or not "real net neutrality."
Netflix is the quintessential example of this entitlement uneconomics view of the Title II Internet regulation crowd.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2010-12-03 12:08
In officially approving the Google-Yahoo-Japan search and advertising partnership, Japanese antitrust authorities have inexplicably declared that granting Google an increase from ~40% share to ~90% of the Japanese search market wouldn't "immediately" violate antitrust rules. Huh?
It is obvious that this decision will end very badly.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2010-12-06 19:19
Julian Assange's likely-criminal dissemination of many nations' secret national security information via Wikileaks -- in posting secret, proprietary, and private information that clearly endangers lives, diplomacy and peace -- has exposed one of the darkest sides of the broad open Internet movement, which pushes radical transparency, and general disrespect for secrets, confidentiality, privacy, and intellectual property -- to varying degrees.
It ironic that the Open Internet Coalition is lobbying the FCC hard now to have the Government force Title II telecom utility regulation on private competitive broadband companies in the name of "openness" -- when there is no identifiable or proven problem to solve.
It is especially ironic that leading corporate proponents of the Open Internet Coalition have been so slow to condemn the obvious harm and criminality of Assange's destructive "open" Wikileaks, but are so quick to condemn competitive broadband companies for not being "open" enough -- when the coalition's definition of "open" is fluid, and when the coalition has no evidence that broadband providers are not being "open."
If it is now so clear that Assange's Wikileaks are a serious problem, why did it take three massive wikileaks over a period of several months for Open Internet member:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2010-12-07 11:27
Julian Assange's reprehensible Wikileaks data breaches of secret, private and proprietary information to the web, endangering lives, diplomacy and peace, has thrust to the forefront of public debate: what are the responsible boundaries of an "Open Internet?"
It is instructive that the term "open Internet" is found nowhere in law.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2010-12-08 14:31
The extent to which Level 3's business is underwater is the untold story behind Level 3's regulatory "hail Mary" claim that its Internet peering dispute with Comcast is somehow a net neutrality violation.
Why is Level 3 seeking a de facto Internet regulation bailout from the FCC?
First, Level 3 is a financially-sinking business with no legitimate growth prospects.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2010-12-10 11:23
Google's signaled change in its business model toward "contextual discovery," represents maybe the most overt and profound conflict of interest ever in Google's already massively-conflicted business model.
So what's Google's "Pushmepullyou" conflict of interest?
Remember Google's search engine is a classic "pull" product and business. A user directs a search, and "pulls" in the requested results to their device.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2010-12-13 12:11
As the FreePress-led letter to the FCC made clear on Friday: "Paid prioritization is the antithesis of openness. Any framework that does not prohibit such economic discrimination arrangements is not real net neutrality."
What is "paid prioritization?"
Remember FreePress' last Uneconomics 101 lesson was that "above-cost pricing" was an "unfair business practice."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2010-12-14 13:15
As an unapologetic proponent of competition over regulation, its disturbing to witness the de-facto de-competition revolution in Internet policy unfolding, where "net neutrality" and "openness" are overthrowing competition as both the central goal and primary means of implementing U.S. Internet policy.
De-Competition Policy Developments
First, reports indicate that the FCC plans to use 1992 monopoly Cable Act law for ancillary legal authority to justify regulating the Internet with Net neutrality. This is wrong-headed for many reasons.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2010-12-16 11:25
In a rare public antitrust defense, Google posted a rebuttal of Washington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein's challenge of Google's strategy of buying its way to broader market dominance (via its pending acquisition of ITA Software that is being reviewed by the DOJ.)
Google's standard misdirection warrants fact-checking.
First, Google claims: "All companies make 'build vs. buy' decisions. The clear subtext here is that Google is no different than any other company making acquisitions, so if others have had their mergers approved so should Google -- fair is fair.
This is misleading because Google is omitting highly material facts of how Google is very different than other companies, and why ITA arguably is a very special case.