Critiques & Responses
The Phoenix Center is a non-profit research institution under Section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code and, as such, we do not seek to influence the political process by participating as a party in any regulatory proceeding or engaging in lobbying of legislatures. Instead, we try to publish timely research and post it on our web page in the hope and intention of contributing positively to the public dialectic.
As our work continues to disseminate, however, various people have authored critiques of our various analyses. To this end, we believe it appropriate to consider formally these various comments as there is always the possibility that critical review, even when adversarial rather than academic in nature, may prove useful in improving our analyses or, in some cases, reveal trivial or substantial flaws that we may have inadvertently committed or overlooked. Moreover, such comments are also useful in providing direction for future research.
We leave it to the discerning public, armed with our research and
all relevant documents (all made freely available at the Phoenix Center
website), to make an educated decision on the validity of our work
and the criticisms of it. Regardless, we appreciate the attention (adversarial
or not), which signifies the relevance of our efforts.
PHOENIX CENTER POLICY PAPER NO. 24: Network Neutrality and Industry
Structure, (April 2006).
[pdf file]
- A Response to Dr. Roycroft (Redux) (July 2006).
[pdf file] - Trevor Roycroft, Network Neutrality, Product
Differentiation, and Social Welfare: Response to Phoenix Center’s
Reply (June 2006).
[pdf file] - Network Neutrality and Scale Economies:
A Response to Dr. Roycroft (May 2006).
[pdf file] - Trevor R. Roycroft, PhD, Roycroft Consulting White Paper, Network
Neutrality, Product Differentiation, and Social Welfare: A Response
to Phoenix Center Policy Paper No. 24 (3 May 2006).
[pdf file]
[pdf file]
- Comments of Robert W. Crandall and Hal J. Singer [pdf file]
- A Response to Drs. Crandall and Singer [pdf file]
[pdf file]
- Comments of Drs. Thomas Hazlett (the Manhattan Institute), Arthur
Havenner (Univ. California - Davis), and Coleman Bazelon (HHB I)
[pdf file] - R. Carter Hill Comments
[pdf file] - Further Comments of Drs. Thomas Hazlett (the Manhattan Institute),
Arthur Havenner (Univ. California - Davis), and Coleman Bazelon (Analysis
Group) (HHB II)
[pdf file] - A Response to Drs. Hazlett, Havenner and Bazelon
[pdf file]
[pdf file]
