You are here

Time Warner Cable

NetCompetition Hill Event: The Unnecessary Collateral Damage from FCC’s Title II Internet (3-26-15)

How Consumers, Innovation & Business Will be Collateral Damage of FCC's
Title II Utility Regulation of the Internet -- Why Only Congress Can Resolve Net Neutrality Legitimately

Date: March 26, 2015

Location: House Rayburn Building 2218

Time: 2:00 PM - 3:30 PM

Moderator: Scott Cleland, NetCompetition
Panelists:

FCC’s Title II Legal Case is Modern Version of “The Emperor Has No Clothes”

 

I.   Summary

Expect the FCC’s new Open Internet Order’s assertion of Title II authority ultimately to be rejected in court (90%), because of its core illegal confiscatory purpose and its serial ends-justify-the-means trampling of due process. 

The FCC’s Title II legal defense is a “modern” day version of “the Emperor has no clothesfable, where the vain FCC confidently parades in public clothed in the legal fabric that utopian legal alchemists have convinced the FCC is invisible only to those who are “hopelessly stupid” or “unfit for their positions.” Sadly, this emperor (the FCC) has no clothes (sustainable legal case).

NetCompetition on FCC Title II Internet Order

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                           

March 12, 2015    Contact:  Scott Cleland 703-217-2407

History Will Judge the FCC’s Regulation of the Internet as the FCC’s Biggest Mistake Ever

The FCC’s Order is Unlawful, Unconstitutional, Unwarranted, Unnecessary & Unworkable

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

Why FCC Will Lose in Court on Title II Internet (80%) – A Legal House of Cards -- A White Paper

Link to full White Paper -- here.

Summary

The FCC’s Open Internet Order, which reclassified the commercial Internet as a Title II utility, is very likely (80%) in the end, to be overturned in court – for a third time.

The FCC’s legal theory and many core assumptions are so aggressive, it’s clear that the FCC expects, and needs, continual and maximal deference from the court to prevail. The FCC also requires the courts to view the FCC’s most aggressive assertion of unbounded authority ever, as a mere administrative interpretation of ambiguous law, and not a political bypass of Congress and the 1996 Telecom Act.       

NetCompetition Statement on FCC Title II Internet Utility Regulation

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                           

February 26, 2015

Contact:  Scott Cleland 703-217-2407

 

 

Strike Three in Court? FCC’s Rube Goldberg Legal Theory is Contrived, Arbitrary & Unbounded

The FCC’s Predictable Fiasco of Internet Utility Regulation -- Daily Caller

Please don’t miss my latest Daily Caller op-ed – “The FCC’s Predictable Fiasco of Internet Utility Regulation.”

  • For the first time, it lays out the top ten predictable messes that the FCC will cause with its abrupt Internet policy U-turn to Title II utility regulation of the Internet.

This Internet policy foundation U-turn predictably will set in motion a chaotic cascade of other supporting policy U-turns over time.

***

FCC Open Internet Order Series

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

America’s Title II Protectionism Will Hurt Google & Silicon Valley in EU

Last November, President Obama effectively abandoned America’s longstanding free trade Internet policy established by President Clinton, in favor of a protectionist Internet industrial policy to benefit America’s national champions, Silicon Valley, under the guise of “net neutrality” policy.

Flipping U.S. Internet policy from global digital free trade to maximal national Internet regulation could end up hurting Silicon Valley the most, because they most benefit from, and depend on, the current free flow of information globally on the Internet.

Ironically, America also is forfeiting the digital free trade policy high ground by leading the world toward a “Splinternet” vision of more nationalistic maximal utility regulation of the Internet and its content.

In particular, it will be much harder for the U.S. to credibly object that the EU’s: creation of a European Digital Single Market (DSM), tightening of the EU-U.S. Data Protection Safe Harbor, and its aggressive enforcement of EU antitrust, privacy, and tax laws against Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple, is protectionist, when America’s new FCC utility regulation of the Internet is a transparently protectionist American industrial policy to advantage America’s national champions in Silicon Valley. 

The FCC Is Not Neutral – My Daily Caller Op-ed

Please don’t miss my latest Daily Caller op-ed “The FCC Is Not Neutral.

  • It explains why the FCC’s partisan arbitrariness may be the downfall of its Title II net neutrality rules in court.

***

 

FCC Open Internet Order Series

 

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

FCC Internet Utility Regulation Is a Really Stupid Idea -- Daily Caller Op-ed

Please don’t miss my latest Daily Caller op-ed FCC Internet Utility Regulation Is a Really Stupid Idea

***

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]

Cleland on NPR KQED Forum Debating EFF Rep on FCC Title II

To hear the ~hour KQED Forum Radio Show today on the FCC’s Title II plans, here is the NPR link. (Note the button to hear the show is under the date of the NPR article you will see.)

NPR’s digital culture correspondent Robin Sydell opened the show with an FCC-sympathetic overview and introduction of what the FCC is planning to do and praised the FCC’s process as “democracy in action.” I rebutted that notion by reminding listeners that the unelected FCC to date has totally rebuffed  any help from America’s duly elected Congress to pass lasting FCC net neutrality authority, and that the FCC is trying a third time to impose rules where courts have twice overturned the FCC.

The pro-FCC voice was Corynne McSherry, intellectual property director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

We had a good discussion where I had the opportunity to make the case in detail why Title II was unnecessary, unwarranted, and highly-politicized, regulatory overkill.

 

 

 

Pages

Q&A One Pager Debunking Net Neutrality Myths