Scott Cleland 's BestNetTech Comments

Latest Comments (26) comment rss

  • On the post: No, Google Did Not Fleece Taxpayers Out Of $7 Billion

    Scott Cleland ( profile ), 08 Apr, 2008 @ 11:34am

    Cleland response

    I responded to Mr. Masnick's blog and the comments much more fully on my blog: http://www.precursorblog.com/node/705
    thanks for the opportunity to comment

  • On the post: No, Google Did Not Fleece Taxpayers Out Of $7 Billion

    Scott Cleland ( profile ), 07 Apr, 2008 @ 10:14pm

    Cleland

    I thought I'd add my two cents to this discussion.

    As one who isn't afraid to use my real name, and one who "openly" discloses that as Chairman of Netcompetition.org I represent broadband interests, I am amused at how many people conveniently avoid grappling with ideas, arguments, estimates -- by anonymously making ad hominum attacks on an intellectual opponent.

    For those who haven't bothered to check out my professional and analyst qualifications they can be found here http://www.precursor.com/bio_long.htm

    I have been attacked for my views and analyses before. Bernie Ebbers ridiculed me regularly for having Worldcom's number before he was indicted. It comes with the territory. I understand that the kitchen can get hot and I can take the heat.

    Expect me to continue to argue my point of view until someone can present a better argument and convince me on the merits.

    Most of the commentary about the spectrum auction is surprisingly and woefully uninformed. Many people spout what they think the facts should be not what they are.

    The cold reality is that Google manipulated the spectrum auction and fleeced the American taxpayer of a lot of money -- we can quibble over the exact amount but that is just a distraction from the real issue -- Google fleeced the American taxpayer out of the full value of the spectrum. One can also disagree with the law that seeks to maximize spectrum auction revenues and not "openness" -- but its still the law.

  • On the post: Study Suggests That Keeping The Net Neutral Results In Increased Infrastructure Investment

    Scott Cleland ( profile ), 09 Mar, 2007 @ 12:40pm

    Re: Again Mike. What's Your Solution?

    Mr. Karr,
    I respectfully suggest that you follow your own advice and "elevate your argument beyond these broad swipes" at broadband companies.

    You are still using an aging and old 98% number, if you would only read the last FCC broadband report you would note from Table 1 that competitive alternatives to DSL and cable have 20% of the high speed market. This is a dynamic market where in the first half of 2006, 58% of new broadband additions were wireless broadband and not DSL or cable.

    You derisively spit out the word "duopoly" thinking that because it has an "opoly" in it -- it is bad. You never share the fair perspective that dial up was a monopoly but that cable challenged and beat DSL in market share and that the US has more wireless broadband investment and competition than any other country -- and somehow this obvious trend of increasing competition is either not happening or not a good thing.

    Moreover, you are moving the goalposts and saying that you have to have 8-10 competitors for their to be competition. Well the facts are that we are getting there... there are that many in the bigger markets and more players entering. I won't be surprised when you feel the need to move the goalposts again and say we need 14-15 competitors before you admit competition may work.

    The "solution" you are proposing is that Government is superior to markets and consumers in sorting out technologies, products and services. Net neutrality is just a smokescreen for abandoning competition and consumer choice for the infinite wisdom of bureaucrats.

    Scott Cleland

  • On the post: WiMax, Net Neutrality And Basic Fact Checking

    Scott Cleland ( profile ), 10 Aug, 2006 @ 07:22am

    Anti-competition

    You obviously have little belief or confidence in competition or the incentives and disincentives of market forces to spur innovation and investment to produce more choice for consumers.

    Your desire to support NN puts you in the tortured position of having to be a tech and innovation pessimist. Just becuase technologies over promise and under deliver over a certain time frame does not mean that the technologies never succeed or get fully deployed.

    If you believed in the potential of competition you would argue that Snowe Dorgan should have sunset provision for when competition reachd your threshold, rather than taking the ultimate pessimist view that competition can never succeed so NN must be permanent.

  • On the post: No, ESPN Still Not Breaking Any Imagined Neutrality Principles

    Scott Cleland ( profile ), 03 Aug, 2006 @ 02:25pm

    Cpmpetitive Double Standard

    You may find my Letter to the Senate Commerce Committee instructive about how NN is an unprincipled competitive double standard.
    http://netcompetition.org/docs/pronetcomp/nn_sencomm.pdf

  • On the post: Mike McCurry: Will You Pay Google's Bandwidth Bills For The Rest Of This Year?

    Scott Cleland ( profile ), 01 Aug, 2006 @ 10:16am

    Disclosing Google's real bandwidth costs

    If you are so confident that Google has a big operating bill for its bandwidth, why don't you help get Google, Yahoo, eBay, and Amazon and Microsoft to fully disclose what their operating bill is for bandwidth? Rather than taking a cheap shot at Mike McCurry to pay for Google's bandwidth bill, why not ask what Google actually pays? If it is as much as you think it is, wouldn't that really shut us up?

    In the interests of full disclosure, what does BestNetTech pay for its bandwidth?
    At Precursor/netcompetition.org I pay $442 a month for T-1 wireline bandwidth and another $60 a month for the supplement of mobile wireless broadband.

    Lets get this all out in the open so all sides know what they are talking about and you all are not blindly taking Google's word for it that they pay a lot for bandwidth.