Consumer: about internet marketing

It’s an eerie echo of last year’s health care debate, but without nearly as much public attention. Another Christmas Eve, another sixth of the economy taken over by Washington.

This time it’s so-called “network neutrality” regulation. President Obama’s Federal Communications Commission is obsessed with regulating the Internet. They apparently won’t be stopped by common sense, courts of law, public opinion, or a resounding electoral defeat for big government policies. They made it official last night at midnight when they announced the agenda for their December 21 meeting: the FCC is going to regulate the Internet.

Network neutrality (also known by the even more lovely sounding marketing term “open Internet”) is an outgrowth of the larger so-called media reform project of radical left-wing activists like Robert McChesney, the socialist founder of the misnamed group Free Press, which has enormous influence on the FCC, where its former communications director, Jen Howard, is FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s press secretary.

McChesney explained where net neutrality leads to SocialistProject.ca:

You will never ever, in any circumstance, win any struggle at any time. That being said, we have a long way to go. At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.

The FCC’s new rules, likely to be approved on a final 3-2, party-line vote on December 21, take McChesney’s first step.

Network neutrality sounds simple – force phone and cable companies to treat every bit of information the same way – but modern networks are incredibly complex, with millions of lines of code in every router, and constantly evolving.

Making sure services like VoIP, video conferencing, and telemedicine (not to mention the next great thing that hasn’t been invented yet – and likely never will be under these regulations) can be handled intelligently by networks is necessary to make the Internet work, but every new innovative network practice will now be subject to the regulatory interference of the FCC.

These networks cost billions of dollars to build and maintain, and if there is uncertainty about getting a good return on that investment, private investment will dry up. And then government will step in, “divest them from control,” and spend billions of our tax dollars on a government-owned and controlled Internet.

According to media reports, many of the largest Internet service providers are willing to accept the new regulations, because they believe the costs of complying are less than the ongoing uncertainty they have suffered as the issue played out over the past two years. It’s an understandable assessment, especially in light of the Chicago-style shakedown tactics the FCC has used, threatening the even more draconian option of directly reclassifying the Internet as a public utility, taking a big shortcut down McChesney’s proposed path to government control.

But there is reason to doubt an FCC that has been so obsessed with these regulations is likely to restrain itself from applying its newly created powers in unpredictable, expensive, and dangerous ways. Indeed we have already seen this Commission ignore:

A near-total lack of support in Congress, where over 300 members signed letters of opposition to FCC Internet regulation, and just 27 have sponsored Rep. Ed Markey’s bill to impose network neutrality rules. The bill has not even been introduced in the Senate.

A devastating unanimous decision of the DC circuit court of appeals in Comcast v. FCC, which eviscerated the Commission’s claims to have the jurisdiction to regulate the Internet. (We can only hope that court will similarly reject the latest regulations.)

An electoral tidal wave for smaller government, less spending, and less regulation. In particular, the election including an embarrassing display on the network neutrality issue by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which touted a net neutrality pledge signed by 95 candidates. All 95 lost.

With influencers like John Podesta, who chaired Obama’s transition team, openly calling for Obama to continue pushing his hard left agenda inside the executive branch, the FCC’s Internet regulations set up a perfect test-case for Congress to step in and stand up to the administration. (Despite FCC being officially “independent,” there are White House fingerprints all over this. Chairman Genachowski is a close friend of the president’s and one of the most frequent White House visitors.)

Congress should act immediately next year to overturn the FCC’s network neutrality regulations with a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, which the new Republican majority can pass in the House and which can then be forced onto the Senate floor with 30-senator petition. It cannot be filibustered and would need just 51 votes to pass.

Obama could veto it, but to do so he would have to take full personal responsibility for ending the most remarkable driver of economic growth, innovation, and free expression we have in this country: the free-market, unregulated Internet.

Congress must show the White House that the strategy of pushing hard left inside the executive branch won’t stand. Congress must do what the American people asked for in this election: stop Obama’s big government agenda.

If you're like most people who want to save money, de-clutter your home and still be connected at the fasted download rates available then you may be thinking about ditching your landline and relying on your mobile more. Less than two thirds of those under 30 years old connect a landline when they move out and this is expected to jump to half in the next three to five years.

About 15% of mobile phone users no longer have a fixed-line telephone at home, says a survey of 18,000 people conducted by ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority). But why is this? Well it's quite clear after Global Mobile hit the streets and spoke to a group of under-30-year-olds to find out the top three reasons.

1. Cost. The average cost to keep a home phone you never use is approximately $25 monthly i.e. you only use it to have broadband Internet in your home. Given the fact you can now get naked connections (connections that no longer need a live home phone account) this means more and more people are switching to naked connections. The providers are smart enough to price a naked Internet connection less than $25 extra to ensure you can see the cost benefit and switch.

2. Clutter/Wireless. The majority of people thought it was a no-brainer and would prefer to have an Internet connection with no wires. Why would you want cords running in your home office when you can go wireless?

3. Mobile Phone. The mobile phone is the number one personal device in the world today. In Australia. penetration has surpassed 100%; there are more mobile phones than people now. The costs are dropping month by month with unlimited plans starting from $70 a month. So why would you pay $25 monthly plus call charges when you can consolidate your services and reduce your costs by using your mobile more?

Continued on the next page

eric seiger do

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

about internet marketing

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me