About Scott Cleland
![]() |
|
You are hereTime Warner CableNetCompetition Hill Event: The Unnecessary Collateral Damage from FCC’s Title II Internet (3-26-15)Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2015-03-25 16:52How Consumers, Innovation & Business Will be Collateral Damage of FCC's Date: March 26, 2015 Location: House Rayburn Building 2218 Time: 2:00 PM - 3:30 PM Moderator: Scott Cleland, NetCompetition FCC’s Title II Legal Case is Modern Version of “The Emperor Has No Clothes”Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2015-03-16 11:48
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 clothes” fable, 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 OrderSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2015-03-12 13:14FOR 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 PaperSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2015-03-02 21:51Link 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 RegulationSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2015-02-26 13:44FOR 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 CallerSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2015-02-24 08:49Please don’t miss my latest Daily Caller op-ed – “The FCC’s Predictable Fiasco of Internet Utility Regulation.”
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 EUSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2015-02-19 11:05Last 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. FCC Internet Utility Regulation Is a Really Stupid Idea -- Daily Caller Op-edSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2015-02-09 20:07Cleland on NPR KQED Forum Debating EFF Rep on FCC Title IISubmitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2015-02-05 18:03To 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 |