You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-04-05 20:11
A group of liberal activists today announced yet another Save... Coalition -- this time a new "Save our Spectrum coalition" that seeks to impose net neutrality on winners of the FCC's upcoming 700 MHz auction.
Ironically, these liberal activists want to totally ignore the law, a spectrum auction law that was passed in 1993 by an all Democratic Government!
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-04-05 13:54
It seems there is more trouble brewing in the eerily quiet ItsOurNet coalition of online giants who are promoting net neutrality legislation.
Today's WSJ article "Ask.com's Revolt Risks costly clicks" highlights a guerilla ad campaign that Ask.com is running in "London subway cars exhorting commuters to "stop the online information monopoly.""
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-04-05 13:29
A great editorial in the European WSJ, "Net Loss" by analyst Alec Van Gelder, alerts us to the potential for regulatory creep to occur in the European Union (EU) and how it relates to the U.S. net neutrality movement.
This fine WSJ piece alerts us to some potentially troublesome developments in the EU: draft laws are due this July on the EU's "standardization policy for the information and technology sector."
Now it will become more clear why I wrote the commentary "America's Unique Internet Success" in the Washington Times last month.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-04-03 19:39
SaveTheInternet's Free Press arm and other liberal advocacy groups are going to ask the FCC to impose net neutrality on the winners of the upcoming 700 MHz wireless auction, according to Tech Daily on 3-30-07.
Less than two weeks ago, the FCC unanimously voted to classify wireless broadband as an unregulated information service which pratically means that net neutrality does not apply to wireless broadband.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-04-02 17:26
Its a great problem to have.
Why I like the flash video so much is that it persuasively spotlights how vibrant and healthy the Internet is today.
If net neutrality proponents were more responsible they would also be focused on solving real (not hypotheical) ongoing problems that are critical to every user every day, which is how to increase the Internet's capacity so that it can continue to operate as it has or better.
The Bottom line: Net neutrality proponents are missing the proverbial forest for the trees.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-03-29 18:44
I sincerely hope that everyone who cares substantively about the net neutrality issue, on either side of the debate, reads the new 2-1/2 page "Economists' Statement on Network Neutrality Policy" by the AEI-Brookings oint Center for Regulatory Studies.
We are still waiting to read a cogent, well-reasoned and supported piece of work that supports the policy of Net neutrality. All we have gotten is assertions, hypotheticals --virtually no facts or analysis from the other side.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-03-29 09:16
Hal Singer of Criterion Economics has a very good commentary today in Canada's Financial Post called "Not Neutrality."
Hal is a very clear thinker and anyone who quotes Milton Friedman in a supportive way is alright by me.
One passage of Hal's commentary really hits the nail on the head about how insidious net neutrality is:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-03-27 19:15
The Future of Music has created a supposed new "coalition" "Rock the Net" to promote net neutrality by banding together music groups who have been suckered into fearing that the Internet will somehow be taken away from them -- without net neutrality legislation.
This is not about policy or legislation.
This is a cheap publicity stunt.
"Rock the net" is basically a bad "lip synching performance" by music groups singing liberal Moveon.org's pre-canned song.
"Lip synching" is the perfect metaphor for the supposed net neutrality grass roots "movement" overall.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-03-27 08:24
The most relevant part of the FCC launching a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) into the net neutality issue was FCC Bureau Chief Tom Navin testifying that no one has formally complained about blocking and no one has formally petitioned the FCC on the matter.
The FCC is launching an NOI to cut through the hysteria and misdirection and finally get the facts on the record.
While I don't think this bogus and completely unsubstantiated issue is even worthy of an NOI, I can understand why the FCC would want to launch an NOI to ensure that no one can say the FCC is not taking this issue seriously.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-03-26 16:32
An article in the Register on the first significant NN debate in the UK is a wonderful read.
It is always helpful to get the reaction of an outside perspective to cut to the quick of an issue.
I reccommend reading the whole article.