Open Internet

Please don’t miss my Daily Caller op-ed here: “Who Pays for Net Neutrality?”

It’s the core question net neutrality proponents don’t want asked and won’t answer.

This is Part 75 of my FCC Open Internet Order Series.

***                 

FCC Open Internet Order Series

Part 1: The Many Vulnerabilities of an Open Internet [9-24-09]

If Congress or the media seek incisive oversight/accountability questions to ask the FCC about the real world implications and unintended consequences of its Title II net neutrality plans, here are ten that fit the bill.

1. Authority? If the FCC truly needs more legal authority to do what it believes necessary in the 21^st century, why doesn’t the FCC start the FCC modernization process and ask Congress for the legitimacy of real modern legislative authorities? Or is it the official position of the FCC that its core 1934 and 1996 statutory authorities are sufficiently timeless, modern and flexible to sustain the legitimacy of FCC regulation for the remainder of the 21st century?

2. Growth & Job Creation? While it may be good for the FCC’s own power in the short-term to impose its most antiquated authority and restrictive Title II regulations on the most modern part of the economy, how would that heavy-handed regulation be good or positive for net private investment, economic growth and job creation?  

GoogleNet is Google’s vision to leverage its proliferating dominance by offering global, near-free Internet-access, mobile connectivity, and Internet-of-Things connectivity via a global, largely-wireless, Android-based, “GoogleNet,” that is subsidized by Google’s search and search advertising dominance and by “open Internet” zero pricing of downstream Internet traffic.

A near-free global GoogleNet would be much like the Google Playbook which offers Android, Maps, YouTube, and others’ content for free globally, to disrupt and commoditize competitors in order to maintain and extend its search and search advertising dominance throughout the economy.

The top ten most descriptive adjectives for the President’s claim that Title II utility regulation authority is needed to implement net neutrality are:

1. UNTRUE

2. UNWARRANTED

3. UNNECESSARY

4. UNFAIR  

5. UNPOPULAR

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                           

November 10, 2014

Contact:  Scott Cleland 703-217-2407

The President’s Call for Regulating the Internet as a Title II Utility Could Break the Global Internet

Autocratic Nations Want the UN’s International Telecommunications Union to Control the Internet

Reclassifying the Internet as “Telecommunications” Isn’t Domestic Policy, but Trade/Foreign Policy    

WASHINGTON D.C. – The following may be attributed to Scott Cleland, Chairman of NetCompetition:

Please don’t miss my Daily Caller op-ed here: “The Federal Communications Congress?”

It explains how the FCC would be reversing longstanding, successful, bipartisan U.S. trade and foreign policy, if it unilaterally reversed the legal status of Internet traffic from an un-tariffed information service to a price (and tariff) regulated “telecommunications” service.  

This is Part 71 of my FCC Open Internet Order Series.

***                 

FCC Open Internet Order Series

Part 1: The Many Vulnerabilities of an Open Internet [9-24-09]

Please don’t miss my Daily Caller op-ed here: “Net Neutrality Has Become an Industrial Policy.”

It explains how net neutrality is being exposed to be less about protecting consumers and more about “Trojan horse” political messaging to protect and subsidize Silicon Valley economic interests.

This is Part 70 of my FCC Open Internet Order Series.

***

FCC Open Internet Order Series

Part 1: The Many Vulnerabilities of an Open Internet [9-24-09]

Please don’t miss my Daily Caller op-ed here: “Will the FCC Break the Internet?”

It explains how the FCC could effectively break the Internet and seriously undermine U.S. trade and foreign policy interests, if it redefined the legal status of American Internet services to ITU utility-regulated “telecommunications” services.

This is Part 68 of my FCC Open Internet Order Series.

***

FCC Open Internet Order Series

Part 1: The Many Vulnerabilities of an Open Internet [9-24-09]

Please don’t miss my Daily Caller op-ed here: “Silicon Valley’s Biggest Internet Mistake,” to learn the disastrous international repercussions for the Internet of the FCC regulating the American Internet as a “telecommunications” utility.

This is Part 67 of my FCC Open Internet Order Series.

***

FCC Open Internet Order Series

Part 1: The Many Vulnerabilities of an Open Internet [9-24-09]

Rep. Henry Waxman, Ranking Member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, wrote the FCC to propose that the FCC, in its pending Open Internet order remand, “reclassif[y] broadband providers as telecommunications services and then using the modern [Title I] authority of section 706 to set bright-line rules to prevent blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization.”