Revisionism by PRI

This is amusing:

The attempt to force network neutrality on wireless carriers will result in disaster and is based on faulty assumptions, including one that there ever was neutrality on the Internet, according to a newly released analysis from the Pacific Research Institute (PRI).

— Researcher Rebukes Wireless 'Net Neutrality' Advocates, NewsBreak, Telecomweb - USA, 26 March 2008

Well, I guess that waves away all the well-documented steps the FCC took to strip away common carrier status from each facet of Internet provision

You have to register to read the rest at Telecomweb, but PRI has more, including this rather amusing claim:

In what is essentially an upbraiding of emerging FCC plans to mandate wireless neutrality, and those backing such FCC regulation, Daniel Ballon, PRI Policy Fellow in Technology Studies, argues that calls for wireless net-neutrality regulations from the FCC "merely brings back failed policies of the past to suit certain corporate interests."

Certain corporate interests? The duopoly and its captive FCC has been busily doing away with net neutrality for the benefit of a few large corporations and PRI claims huge public and Congressional support for net neutrality is only "to suit certain corporate interests"? Is this a bit of psychological projection, or what?

PRI is also pushing an op-ed that purports to debunk five myths of health care, including:

(1) Forty-seven million Americans do not have health insurance.

This figure comes from the U.S. Census Bureau. What most people don't know, however, is that the Bureau counts anyone who went without health insurance during any part of the previous year as "uninsured." So if you weren't covered for just one day in 2007, you're one of the 47 million.

That also includes 10.2 million illegal immigrants, and about 14 million people who are eligible for public health-care programs like Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program but have yet to enroll. And nearly 10 million of the "uninsured" have household incomes of more than $75,000 — so they can probably afford to buy health insurance but choose not to.

— E-mail Print Five myths of health care, Washington Times Op-Ed, 3.21.2008

Well, that explains all the people I know (neighbors, high school classmates, etc.) who work full time jobs but can't afford health care and are looking forward to being old enough to get Medicare, or who can't work because of medical conditions and can't afford health care. I guess my high school classmates must be illegal immigrants.

Which should I believe? The evidence of my own eyes, or this amusingly creative "evidence" by PRI?

-jsq