Why Broadband is Not a Public Utility

-By Scott Cleland

The data and evidence show that broadband is not a public utility warranting economic regulation of prices, terms and conditions; this is contrary to the assertions of net neutrality proponents: the Markey-Eshoo Bill, FreePress, the Open Internet Coalition and Google’s Internet Evangelist Vint Cerf, among others.

Why is broadband not a public utility?

First, it is a competitive service, not a natural monopoly service.

A public utility presumes “natural monopoly” economics where economies of scale and scope preclude the possibility of competitive facilities/services.

Continue reading


Why Broadband is Not a Public Utility”


Why proposed net neutrality bill is the most extreme yet

-By Scott Cleland

While the latest net neutrality bill introduced in Congress has no chance of passage as drafted, it is a bay window view into how extreme the net neutrality movement has become and what they are seeking from the FCC via backdoor regulation.

The proposed Markey-Eshoo bill, HR 3458, which was drafted in close coordination with FreePress and the Open Internet Coalition, is much more extreme than previous bills in 2008 and 2006.

Why is this bill the most extreme version of net neutrality yet?

First, it is a completely unworkable framework.
Continue reading


Why proposed net neutrality bill is the most extreme yet”


A Maslow “Hierarchy of Internet Needs”? — Will there be

-By Scott ClelandInternet priorities or a priority-less Internet?

A central policy question concerning the future of the Internet, cloud computing and the National Broadband Plan is whether there should be Internet priorities or a priority-less Internet?

The crux of the grand conflict over the direction of Internet policy is that proponents of a mandated neutral/open Internet insist that only users can prioritize Internet traffic, not any other entity.

To grasp the inherent problem and impracticality with a mandated neutral or priority-less Internet, it is helpful to ask if the Internet, which is comprised of hundreds of millions of individual users, has a mutual “hierarchy of needs,” just like individuals have a “hierarchy of needs,” per Maslow’s famed, common sense “Hierarchy of Needs” theory.

Briefly, renowned psychologist, Abraham Maslow, devised his common sense “Hierarchy of Needs” to explain inherent human priorities, i.e. that some human needs are more important or urgent than others.
Continue reading


A Maslow “Hierarchy of Internet Needs”? — Will there be”


Defining the Problem(s) is the Crux of the National Broadband Plan

-By Scott Cleland

FCC Broadband Coordinator Blair Levin described the crux of the National Broadband Plan in testifying before the Commission 7-02 as “identifying where there are currently ‘demonstrable public interest harms.'” That central task is essentially defining the problem(s) and is necessary to complete the last task of the plan: “identifying ways to lessen those public interest harms,” or recommending solutions. Defining the problem largely defines the range of recommended solutions.

The plural use of “harms” here suggests that the Plan could end up “identifying” more problems than the obvious core problem prompting the Plan — that not “all people of the United States have access to broadband capability.”

Levin’s choice of a classic organizational structure, background-problem-solution, is a wise, useful and simplifying approach for such an exceedingly complex endeavor.
Continue reading


Defining the Problem(s) is the Crux of the National Broadband Plan”


What’s the Broadband Plan Implementation Vision? Affirming Competition Policy? or The “Retro-genda?”

-By Scott Cleland

At core, Congress has asked the FCC to recommend to Congress HOW “to ensure that all people of the United States have access to broadband capability.” Arguably, the FCC’s main “fork-in-the-road” decision in developing its National Broadband Plan is whether to recommend to Congress to Re-affirm the current competition vision/law/precedent for broadband policy and build upon the strong foundation and momentum of facilities-based competition in the marketplace? or Design the more Government-centered broadband ecosystem policy recommended most prominently by FreePress /Open Internet Coalition members and rebuild the common carrier regulation regime of the twentieth century?

What engine of choice will the FCC recommend to Congress: Competitive forces and private investment? or Government forces and taxpayer money?  

In other words, will the FCC: Affirm a competitive broadband ecosystem where consumers vote with their wallets about which innovations, technologies and companies succeed or fail on the merits? or Endorse a regulatory broadband ecosystem where regulators largely pre-determine which innovations, technologies and companies will be favored and, hence, win or lose?
Continue reading


What’s the Broadband Plan Implementation Vision? Affirming Competition Policy? or The “Retro-genda?””


What Do Broadband Stimulus Decisions Signal about Future Broadband & Net Neutrality Policy?

-By Scott Cleland

What do the Administration’s new “NOFA” guidelines, which implement the $7.2b broadband stimulus package, tell us about the trajectory for broadband and net neutrality policy going forward?

If one listened to just the public comments of net neutrality proponents one would miss a lot of important substance and clues about where broadband and net neutrality policy may be going, given that these new grant guidelines/conditions are the first major official broadband guidance stemming from the new Congress and the new Administration.

What do we know now that we didn’t know before the release of the NOFA guidelines?
Continue reading


What Do Broadband Stimulus Decisions Signal about Future Broadband & Net Neutrality Policy?”


Handset Exclusives Drive Growth & Broadband Adoption

-By Scott Cleland

Why regulate tech/computer sales?

Handset marketing exclusives are a pro-competitive wellspring of wireless growth and broadband adoption. Marketing exclusives are also a legitimate, proven and widespread marketing practice that marshals maximum marketing resources for selected, potentially-hot-new-products in order to drive maximum sales and adoption.

Pro-regulation proposals calling for the FCC to ban smartphone/netbook marketing exclusives are unnecessary, and would also be highly counter-productive as they would undermine the Government’s important goals of stimulating the economy and promoting broadband adoption.
Continue reading


Handset Exclusives Drive Growth & Broadband Adoption”


YouTube’s ‘How To’ on Citizen Journalism Filled With Lefty Media Types, No Conservatives

-By Warner Todd Huston

Apparently, YouTube doesn’t think that a conservative journalist has anything to say to help all you budding citizen journalists out there. A glance at the denizens of the Old Media offered up as journalism experts on the Internet video giant will show a long list of well known lefties with not a single center or center right professional in the mix.

On April 30, YouTube set up a channel dedicated to a sort of how-to instruction manual or an online media 101 class that folks interested in becoming citizen journalists can watch to help them learn some of the tricks of the Media trade. Ostensibly, this will help the average, every day blogger present his work in a more professional way. This is a great idea, by the way. Many blogs could use some tips on better writing and presentation, interview skills, and video presentation if not an occasional editor — and I should know on that last one!

But it seems that no one that represents the center-right in the world of journalism seems to qualify as an expert as far as Google’s YouTube is concerned. Going to the main page will reveal a whole bunch of lefty jurnos offering you their help. Not only do we get the advice from the heavily left-slanted Chris Cillizza, NPR or Katie Couric, but YouTube even offers “advice” from AlJazeera’s Riz Kahn, for Pete’s sake!

Imagine, AlJeazeera on journalistic professionalism!

Continue reading


YouTube’s ‘How To’ on Citizen Journalism Filled With Lefty Media Types, No Conservatives”


What If Columbo Investigated Special Access?

-By Scott Cleland

A new coalition of some struggling broadband competitors, NoChokePoints.org, is making claims that the “special access” market is being “choked” by lack of competition and is urging the FCC to reverse course and regulate lower prices for these competitors.

“Special access” is basically the business-to-business leasing market of the copper wire connections that link many buildings and cell towers to the Internet backbone at DS1 (1.5 Mbs) and DS3 (44.7 Mbs) speeds.

Continue reading


What If Columbo Investigated Special Access?”


My House Internet Privacy Testimony — ‘a consumer-driven, technology/competition neutral privacy framework’

-By Scott Cleland

Today I testified before a Joint House Subcommittee hearing of the Energy & Commerce Committee on “The Potential Privacy Implications of Behavioral Advertising.”

A one-page summary is below and the full testimony is here.

Summary Testimony of Scott Cleland, President, Precursor LLC

“Why A Consumer-Driven, Technology/Competition-Neutral, Privacy Framework Is Superior to a Default ‘Finders Keepers Losers Weepers’ Privacy Framework”

Before the Joint House Energy & Commerce Hearing on Behavioral Advertising, June 18, 2009
Continue reading


My House Internet Privacy Testimony — ‘a consumer-driven, technology/competition neutral privacy framework’”


Indexing into the Ditch — Financial Crisis Root Causes — Part I

-By Scott Cleland

Despite the widely held view that indexing is the safest way to invest, indexing helped recklessly drive our financial system and economy into the ditch last fall.

While there’s consensus the financial crisis warrants “new rules of the road” and better policing to protect against systemic risk, all the rules and oversight in the world can’t keep us out of the ditch in the future if index vehicles continue to drive the wrong way against oncoming traffic.

And “stress testing” whether bank vehicles can survive head-on crashes, completely misses the point that indexers should not be driving the wrong way on the freeway.

Continue reading


Indexing into the Ditch — Financial Crisis Root Causes — Part I”


The National Broadband Plan “Fork-in-the-Road”

-By Scott Cleland

A scan of the major comments just delivered to the FCC on the National Broadband Plan (which is due to Congress February 2010), spotlighted the big broadband policy “fork-in-the-road” decision that the FCC now has before it.

One road of the fork-in-the-road continues down the road of: Promoting facilities-based competition;Encouraging private investment in a wide diversity of technologies; and Facilitating a cooperative public-private partnership to address unserved broadband areas and lagging adoption of widely available broadband.
Continue reading


The National Broadband Plan “Fork-in-the-Road””


On D-Day Anniversary, Google Memorializes… Tetris?

-By Warner Todd Huston

It was June 6, 1944 that the crucial Normandy Landings occurred that formed the spearhead of the Allied invasion of Nazi held Europe. D-Day ultimately led to the victory of the Allies over the despotic Nazi regime. Now here we are on June 6, 2009 and, in its inimitable way, Google has decided to memorialize the important occasion by adding an image on its homepage depicting… the computer game Tetris.

Yes, it’s far more important to Google to celebrate the anniversary of the invention of the video game Tetris than to memorialize D-Day. It just warms the heart, doesn’t it?

I have to say, though, that this is no departure for Google, a firm that finds it nearly impossible to post images celebrating any American holidays or important milestones in American history. So, what we have here is just one more example of Google’s essentially anti-American policies.

Continue reading


On D-Day Anniversary, Google Memorializes… Tetris?”


Why New WH Cybersecurity Focus is a Game-Changer — for the Internet and Net Neutrality

-By Scott Cleland

President Obama’s new approach to cybersecurity likely is more of an Internet game-changer than many appreciate. Initial reporting and commentary has been superficial and has not connected dots or analyzed the broader logical implications of this new policy emphasis and trajectory.

Why is it a game-changer for the Internet?

  • First, it formalizes a new leading priority for the Internet.
  • Second, it formalizes the lack of cybersecurity as the Internet’s leading problem.
  • Third, it practically redefines what “open Internet” means.
  • Fourth, it practically takes any extreme form of net neutrality off the table.

Moreover, the new cybersecurity focus will likely have a practical effect on the trajectory of Internet 3.0, which embodies cloud computing (where security has not been a primary priority by many); the Mobile web (where security has always been a very high priority); and the Internet of Things (where security will be imperative to prevent theft, intrusion, and sabotage).

Continue reading


Why New WH Cybersecurity Focus is a Game-Changer — for the Internet and Net Neutrality”


EC declares “no need for State intervention” in broadband duopoly

…because there’s no market failure

-By Scott Cleland

In a significant blow to U.S. advocates of Government-mandated open access networks — over facilities-based broadband network competition — the European Commission (EC) just declared “no need for State intervention” in geographic zones where there are at least two facilities-based broadband network competitors, because that means “there is no market failure.”

The EC made the declaration in its just-released report: “Community Guidelines for the application of State aid rules in relation to rapid deployment of broadband networks.” This is the EC guidance for spending economic stimulus funds for promoting broadband.

Continue reading


EC declares “no need for State intervention” in broadband duopoly”


Latest Data: US No Longer Falling Behind on Broadband

-By Scott Cleland

The latest data from the OECD and other sources indicate that the U.S. is no longer falling behind the rest of the world in broadband.

These latest data are relevant to assumptions underlying the FCC’s National Broadband Strategy due to Congress next February and also to broadband policymakers’ interest in more data-driven policymaking.

In particular, the OECD broadband rankings have been prominently cited by some as important evidence to justify a reversal of current facilities-based broadband competition policy, in favor of a more government-centered broadband policy.
Continue reading


Latest Data: US No Longer Falling Behind on Broadband”


Why the Australian “Fiber Mae” Broadband Model Doesn’t Work for the U.S.

-By Scott Cleland

As the FCC lays the groundwork for its submission of a National Broadband Strategy to Congress next February, some suggest the U.S. follow the lead of Australia’s new broadband policy model. While it may have superficial and nostalgic appeal to some, upon close scrutiny and analysis it is not an applicable, practical nor sound broadband policy option for the United States for a variety of reasons. The Australian “Fiber Mae” broadband policy model is:

  • Not applicable to the U.S. because the ownership and competitive baselines in Australia and the U.S. are not analogous;
  • Not practical for the U.S. because it is a hugely expensive proposal in an exceedingly tight budget/financial environment that would generate very little incremental additional benefit over the current competitive trajectory; and
  • Not sound policy for the U.S. because it pursues the wrong policy emphasis and structure, which could have the perverse result of the U.S. falling behind in broadband leadership — the exact opposite of the intended result.

By way of background, the Australian government announced last month that it would establish “a new company to build and operate a new super-fast National Broadband Network.” The proposal would deploy fiber to the home to 90% of users with 100 Mbs, and deploy 12 Mbs wireless technology to the remaining 10% of the country, at an estimated total cost of ~$31b or ~$4,100 per home passed. This government-sponsored enterprise would be majority-owned by the Australian government. It would create “Australia’s first national wholesale only, open access broadband network.”
Continue reading


Why the Australian “Fiber Mae” Broadband Model Doesn’t Work for the U.S.”


The Broader Implications of DOJ’s Book Settlement Investigation

-By Scott Cleland

The DOJ investigation of the Google Book Settlement suggests that a broader antitrust spotlight may be returning to Google.

Apparently the DOJ is investigating whether the Book Settlement sets a competitive or anti-competitive trajectory for the search of digitized books, and of “orphan” works in particular.

Google argues the settlement is pro-competitive and increases access to books.

The DOJ’s antitrust investigative scrutiny suggests otherwise.
Continue reading


The Broader Implications of DOJ’s Book Settlement Investigation”


Implications of Skype’s IPO for eBay-Skype & Wireless Net Neutrality

-By Scott Cleland

Given that eBay’s announced spin-off/IPO of Skype in 2010 is a material market event, this high-profile IPO represents a potentially tectonic development in eBay-Skype’s (and FreePress‘) push for wireless net neutrality/Carterfone regulations and applying the FCC’s broadband principles to wireless providers for the first time. There are much broader implications of this market development than many appreciate.

Some brief background information is helpful to understand the broader implications:

Reports suggest that eBay’s plans for a public IPO in 2010 are a result of eBay not being able to get a high enough private market price ($1.7b) for Skype and the fact that current market conditions are not ripe for initial public offerings. (eBay originally paid $2.6b for Skype and added an additional $500m later, then subsequently wrote down $1.4b of Skype’s value.)
Continue reading


Implications of Skype’s IPO for eBay-Skype & Wireless Net Neutrality”


Skype’s Anti-competitive Uneconomics

-By Scott Cleland

There are two primary problems with eBay-Skype’s attempt to get the Government to force competitive wireless providers to carry Skype’s free communications app under the guise of wireless net neutrality and Internet openness: first, it is wildly uneconomic, and second, it is anti-competitive.

The issue has surfaced in the news (USAToday, WSJ) as Apple enabled a Skype app on the iPhone for use on free public WiFi networks, but not on the iphone’s commercial network provided by AT&T; and again when Google’s Android banned a tethering app because it violated T-Mobile’s terms of service as reported by CNET.
Continue reading


Skype’s Anti-competitive Uneconomics”


Building upon a Strong Broadband Foundation — Part I in America’s Broadband Strengths Series

-By Scott Cleland

The combination of the severe recession and Congress’ requirement for the FCC to devise a National Broadband Strategy provides an excellent opportunity to inventory not only weaknesses, but also the many strengths, of the broadband sector and economy. Comprehensive analysis shows much that is going well that mustn’t be taken for granted in any new broadband plans. Unlike many other sectors of the economy, the American broadband sector is:

  • An exceptionally strong foundation to build upon;
  • On the right track with much positive momentum; and
  • Partnering to solve many of society’s most pressing problems.

I. Strong Foundation to Build Upon

America’s competitive broadband market has an exceptionally strong foundation of positives on which to build upon, enhance, expand and supplement.
Continue reading


Building upon a Strong Broadband Foundation — Part I in America’s Broadband Strengths Series”


The Flawed Economics of Broadband Open Access in the U.S.

-By Scott Cleland

A post by a Google policy analyst yesterday attempted to make the economic case for open access in the U.S. and suggested reasons why American infrastructure providers should embrace a mandated open network model. This proposed theory warrants a strong practical rebuttal. The proposed case for the economics of open access does not hold up to close scrutiny because it has fatal flaws in both logic and economics.

I. The fatal flaw in logic in the case for the economics of open access:

Since the post assumes broadband markets everywhere are basically the same, it concludes that the open access experience in some European countries is relevant and applicable to the U.S. situation. The fatal flaw in logic here is the core assumption that European and U.S. markets are factually analogous. They are not. They are substantially different factually and structurally as I will explain in detail.
Continue reading


The Flawed Economics of Broadband Open Access in the U.S.”


U.S. Leads World in Broadband Affordability per New ITU Data — Competition Works!

-By Scott Cleland

America’s longstanding bipartisan policy commitment to promote broadband competition has succeeded in making broadband more affordable in the U.S. than in any other country in the world according to the ITU.

Data in a broad new study by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) of 150 countries, show the U.S. leads the world by a substantial margin with the lowest broadband prices as a percentage of per capita GNI. (See the tables on pages 56 and 66.)

Continue reading


U.S. Leads World in Broadband Affordability per New ITU Data — Competition Works!”

The Growing Privacy-Publicacy Fault-line — The Tension Underneath World Data Privacy Day

-By Scott Cleland

Given that January 28 was World Data Privacy Day, its instructive to examine why there is such increasing tension underneath the surface of the Internet over the issue of privacy. I believe there is a growing “fault line” between two opposing tectonic forces — one that believes in online privacy and the other which believes in the opposite — online publicacy.

I coined the term “publicacy” in my July 2008 House testimony on online privacy because Internet technology has created the need for an antonym to describe the opposite of privacy. Many in the Web 2.0 community believe in the “publicacy ethos” where if technology innovation can make information public, it should be public and that there should be no permission or payment required to access, use or remix this new “public”‘ information.
Continue reading “The Growing Privacy-Publicacy Fault-line — The Tension Underneath World Data Privacy Day”

Why net neutrality regulation would undercut Universal Broadband progress

-By Scott Cleland

The start of robust broadband deployment in the U.S. was delayed for several years in the late 1990’s because of regulatory uncertainty over whether broadband investment could earn a competitive return.

Today’s release of the proposed economic stimulus package is extremely relevant to the question of investment in Universal Broadband; it says: “For every dollar invested in broadband, the economy sees a ten-fold return on that investment.”

Recent guidance from the Obama transition team spearheading the Universal Broadband effort is also encouraging. At the State of the Net Conference, Blair Levin said: “You don’t want to do anything that makes a competitive market more difficult.”
Continue reading “Why net neutrality regulation would undercut Universal Broadband progress”

Net Neutrality’s Chill on a Free Market Internet — Google’s OpenEdge Caching in Context

-By Scott Cleland

Calls for preemptive sweeping regulation can have a way of backfiring, impeding common sense, and discouraging sound market outcomes. Take Net neutrality.

Today’s Wall Street Journal front page story “Google wants its own fast track on the web” reports on:

Google’s secret “OpenEdge” request to ISPs to colocate Google servers on ISP premises in order to speed up Google’s network and reduce Google’s traffic burden on the Internet; and also How the special request appears to signal waning support by Google of net neutrality legislation/regulation.
Continue reading “Net Neutrality’s Chill on a Free Market Internet — Google’s OpenEdge Caching in Context”

Google uses 21 times more bandwidth than it pays for — per first-ever research study

-By Scott Cleland

Below is the press release for the first-ever research study of U.S. Consumer Internet Usage and Cost which I authored.

The 27 page research study can be accessed at this link:

http://www.netcompetition.org/study_of_google_internet_usage_costs2.pdf

For Immediate Release December 4, 2008

Contact: Scott Cleland 703-217-2407

First-Ever Study of U.S. Consumer Internet Usage and Cost Finds Google Uses 21 Times More Bandwidth than it Pays For

Google uses 16.5% of U.S. consumer Internet capacity today, rising to an estimated 37% in 2010
Continue reading “Google uses 21 times more bandwidth than it pays for — per first-ever research study”

Why Google lost the formal debate over its ethics — And a compendium of Google’s ethical lapses

-By Scott Cleland

Google effectively lost its first formal debate over whether “Google violates its own ‘Don’t Be Evil’ motto” at the Rosenkranz Foundation’s Oxford-style debate in New York City, November 18. (Transcript here)

Before the debate the audience was polled and voted 21% against Google and 48% for Google; after gathering additional insight from the debate, 47% voted against Google and 47% voted for Google. Apparently, most all of the undecideds voted against Google — that Google violated their own ‘don’t be evil’ motto.

What does this mean?
Continue reading “Why Google lost the formal debate over its ethics — And a compendium of Google’s ethical lapses”

An Unrepentant Google Basically Taunts DOJ/State AGs to File an Antitrust Suit in the Future

-By Scott Cleland

Google remains its own worst enemy

After dodging a certain DOJ antitrust suit from the most lenient antitrust enforcer in the modern era by withdrawing from the Yahoo ad agreement, Google’s CEO essentially spit at DOJ/State AG prosecutors by publicly and gratuitously saying: Google would have beaten the DOJ in court, nothing has changed, and that they were happy they reached out to Yahoo.
Continue reading “An Unrepentant Google Basically Taunts DOJ/State AGs to File an Antitrust Suit in the Future”

Google Proves Crime Does Pay – If You Have Enough Market Power

-By Scott Cleland

Google, in settling with authors/publishers for $125m in their copyright infringement lawsuits, has cleverly leveraged its market power to tip, and lock in, another Internet segment to de facto Google monopoly control — access to most of the world’s books online. The untold story here is how this settlement:

  • Enthrones Google as the de facto gatekeeper to access most of the world’s books online;
  • Establishes a “new model” for online content distribution;
  • Attempts to set precedent that leveraging market power to extract monopoly rents in an adjacent market is OK; and
  • Positions Google to become the world’s omni-platform for media distribution that will wipe out traditional media competition, unless antitrust enforcement ensures media distribution competition survives.

Why does crime pay for Google?
Continue reading “Google Proves Crime Does Pay – If You Have Enough Market Power”