You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-05-18 11:05
I personally think the Markey proposal to spend $36 million for a "national broadband map" is a monumental waste of taxpayer money and really bad "policy".
However, there is a not so hidden agenda lurking here.
The reason they want a national broadband policy is that they want a one-size-fits-all national policy like net neutrality which ensures everyone gets the same broadband service regardless of different needs, wants or means.
It still amazes me how Chairman Markey and his fellow Big Government/net neutrality proponents can not see that competition and not regulating the Internet has been a fabulous, albeit imperfect success for the United States.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-05-17 18:04
Calls by House Telecom Chairman Ed Markey and other Big Government proponents for better "broadband mapping" is simply a "trojan horse" for regulating the Internet. and more government intervention in the marketplace.
Mr. Markey knows that calling for better data is generally an easy way to build consensus around an issue while staying "under the radar."
Make no mistake about it, this is Chairman Markey's first step in a grander scheme to have Big government play a much bigger role in the Internet and the digital economy.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-05-16 18:14
I was able to ask the only question from the audience of the Educause net neutrality panel today.
Mr. Whit's first weak line of defense was that the term is really "network" neutrality implying it was not about "Internet" neutrality.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-05-16 15:47
I attended the Educause conference panel today because they made a big deal about how they were going to launch a new white paper with a new compromise on net neutrality that would be "more reasonable."
I was also amused that Educause, this academic oriented forum, did not even attempt to present a balanced panel that represented both points of view on net neutrality.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-05-16 14:06
I just rewatched the outstanding Fiber to the Home Council's video on the Internet Exaflood.
If SaveTheInternet and FreePress was truly interested in a free and open debate on net neutrality they would want to send this outstanding informational video out to their email blast list.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-05-14 13:10
I was shaking my head in disbelief when I read Comm Daily on Reed Hundt's interview on CSPAN's The Communicators series.
Excuse me? wireless monopolies?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-05-14 11:18
The New York Times reported that "Google has agreed to block four video clips on its YouTube Web site that the Government of Thailand said insulted its king."
This is not the first time that Google, which waxes eloquently about how net neutrality is needed to promote free speech, has hypocritically stabbed free speech in the back for its own expedience.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-05-14 10:54
Reuters reports that "a federal judge ordered Google to face a jury trial in a trademark infringement suit that aims at the main source of the company's revenue."
Why does this matter?
I also discovered a new and relevant fact in my ongoing research -- that I believe will be used succesfully against Google in this case.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-05-11 18:18
I stumbled upon some more powerful evidence that the SaveTheInternet coalition of 800+ organizations who back net neutrality -- are just special interests looking for a self-serving subsidy handout from the government.
I previously blogged on my theory that the 800+ organizations backing SaveTheInternet cynically know that their members are not really at risk on the Internet from "blocking" etc., but that their organization's cost structures are at risk because they have become addicted to subsidized cheap blast emails.
I suspect the other 800+ organizations in SaveTheInternet coalition have made the same self serving calculus, but love to hide behind the populist "human shield" of supposedly looking out for the American consumer.
Like any other special interest, these SaveTheInternet organizational supporters are lobbying for net neutrality for self-serving reasons, i.e. a law/regulation that would ensure their cost of email distribution would never go up. What a deal!
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-05-11 10:42
I wanted to be sure folks saw what Greg Moore, Executive Director of the National NAACP Voter Fund said recently on net neutrality in a commentary piece in the Asbury Park Press:
Extremely well said!