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.
At the core of most neutrality-ites is a deep anti-business bias and a huge naivete. It was business and market forces that helped take the Internet from a backwater academic/government network to the phenomenon it is today. Neutrality-ites naively assume all the benefits of a marketplace for free and then want to attack things it doesn't like about markets.
Yes, let's talk about selectivity and honesty and the like
If there is no desire to block access to sites, why then is there objection to a law saying that you <em>can't</em> block access to sites? That's like saying "I don't intend to steal, so let's not have any pesky laws saying you can't steal." If you are going to comply with an as yet uncreated law anyway, it ought to make no difference at all to you when the law gets created.
What is this about the Internet getting bigger and bigger for free? Why am I paying Verizon every month for my access if this is free? The Internet is not free and we are already paying for our services. The issue is not about the Internet being free or about companies paying for services.
I consider these arguments of yours to be disingenuous at best. Pull the other one.
Mr Cleland, for those who don't know, is <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/interviews/cleland.html">desrcibed as follows</a>: "A top telecom strategist, Cleland is the founder and CEO of the Precursor Group, a research boutique for institutional investors."
The link did not work.
I see that HREF links are not allowed in these postings. I tried to use one in my preceding posting to link to the site that described Mr Cleland's background. The URL is as follows:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/interviews/cleland.html