Open Internet

Please don’t miss my latest Daily Caller op-ed “Testing the FCC’s Net Neutrality Political Calculus.”

• It explains how the FCC is risking the proverbial “bird in the hand” to grasp for the elusive “two birds in the bush,” and in doing so is very likely to end up with no net neutrality authority long term.    

***

FCC Open Internet Order Series 

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

Please don’t miss my latest Daily Caller op-ed “The FCC’s De-Americanization of the Internet.”

It explains how the FCC’s expected U-turn on Title II affects digital free trade by contrasting the very different Clinton-Net and Obama-Net visions for the Internet.  

***

FCC Open Internet Order Series 

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                           

January 23, 2015      Contact:  Scott Cleland 703-217-2407

FCC Should Lead by Example and Be Publicly Open & Transparent about its Internet Proposal

Why Block or Throttle Public Openness & Transparency in a FCC Open Internet Order Vote?

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

Please don’t miss my latest Daily Caller op-ed “Why the FCC Needs Congress.”

While the FCC may imagine it does not need any authority from this Congress to legally enforce an Open Internet, it does need the Congress legally, operationally and politically.  

***

FCC Open Internet Order Series

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

Current attention on the “tree” of the FCC’s pending Open Internet Order vote on net neutrality, has many “missing the forest” of additional serious problems with outdated 1934 communications law.   

To put net neutrality in the context of all the legal authority obsolescence problems faced by the FCC, please don’t miss this eye-opening one-page summary (here and below) of my latest white paper, “The Need for Modernizing Communications Law for American Consumers.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                           

January 16, 2015

Contact:  Scott Cleland 703-217-2407

The FCC Should Defer to an Engaged Congress to Best Resolve its Real Internet Authority Gaps

There is No Legitimate Policy/Process Reason Why FCC Can’t Wait a Reasonable Period of Time to Seek a Permanent Bipartisan Congressional Solution Rather than the FCC’s 0-2 Legal Record

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

Please do not miss my timely Daily Caller op-ed: “Will FCC Grant Congress Legislative Deference?”

• It puts in perspective how the FCC’s Open Internet plans fit into the bigger picture.  

This is Part 79 of my FCC Open Internet Series. 

***

FCC Open Internet Order Series

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

Part 2: Why FCC proposed net neutrality regs unconstitutional, NPR Online Op-ed [9-24-09]

In directing the Wireless bureau to make two substantial, Commission-level decisions today, without the full Commission vote that was requested by Commissioners Pai and O’Rielly, (concerning the release of the annual wireless competition report and regulating cellular data roaming rates), the FCC Chairman unnecessarily undermined the legitimacy of the FCC at a critical time the FCC needs all the actual and perceived legitimacy it can get.

The FCC’s legitimacy comes from the authority of law written by a duly-elected Congress under the U.S. Constitution, and from the official votes from duly-appointed FCC commissioners, who in turn abide by: the powers vested in the Commission by the Communications Act; due process; and the Administrative Procedures Act.

Process matters.

Making rate regulation without an official vote of the Commission can create the public perception that a majority of the Commission may not support some, or all of the new rate regulation.

At this particular time in the FCC’s history, when the FCC is potentially poised to reclassify the Internet as a Title II telecommunications service to impose rate regulation for downstream Internet traffic, (which also could involve some forbearance from other rate regulations via the official forbearance process), the perception of the reliability of the FCC in respecting its own processes and procedures is especially important.

With due credit toRipley's Believe it or Not!, so much odd and bizarre is happening in Washington in the "name" of “Title II utility regulation of the Internet ” that the topic calls for its own collection of: Believe it or Not!^®oddities.

In seeking comment for what is the best FCC legal authority to enforce net neutrality, Section 706, Title II, etc., the FCC has completely ignored the most obvious solution – asking Congress -- the source of all its existing authority -- for the new authority the FCC believes it needs!

Will this FCC legal team learn from the legal mistakes of their predecessors and ensure the FCC has a thorough and a sufficient legal record to justify their legal theories, given that the FCC already has failed twice in crafting legal net neutrality regulations in Comcast v. FCC in 2010 and again in Verizon v. FCC in 2014?

Kindly, the U.S. Court of Appeals has provided the FCC a roadmap to follow to legally justify their net neutrality rules under Section 706.

It is telling that the court provided no similar legal “roadmap” for Title II reclassification. That’s because Title II reclassification would require successfully backtracking decades of opposing FCC and court precedents and remixing FCC authorities in new and imaginative ways to traverse uncharted legal territory.