You are here

Competition

Interconnection is Different for Internet than Railroads or Electricity – Part 55 FCC Open Internet Order Series

 

Some things are way too important to let slip by uncontested.

The FCC has asserted a foundational regulatory premise that warrants rebuttal and disproving, given that the FCC is considering if Internet access, and Internet backbone peering, should be regulated like a utility under Title II telephone common carrier regulation.

In an important speech on Internet interconnection last month to the Progressive Policy Institute, the very able and experienced Ruth Milkman, Chairman Tom Wheeler’s Chief of Staff, asserted that “communications networks are no different” than railroad and electricity networks when it comes to interconnection. “… At bottom… the fact is that a network without connections and interconnections is one that simply doesn’t work. Disconnected networks do not serve the public interest.”

NetCompetition Proposes Competition Framework for House Comm Act Update

 

NetCompetition submitted this proposed communications competition framework in response to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton’s and Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden’s call for input on defining competition and competition principles for a potential Communications Act Update next Congress.  

 

Modernizing the Communications Act – Modern is Consumer-Driven Competition

 

Obsolete presumption of telephone and cable monopolies: The core policy problem with monopoly-premised communications law is that it is hostile to the reality of a vibrantly competitive communications marketplace.

Exposing Netflix’ Biggest Net Neutrality Deceptions – Part 16 Netflix Research Series

 

If Netflix’ position on net neutrality was justified on the merits, why does Netflix need to say so many deceptive things that are demonstrably untrue, in order to justify its case for its version of net neutrality?

Top Ten Reasons Broadband Is Not a Public Utility -- My Daily Caller Op-ed

 

Please see my latest Daily Caller op-ed: “Top Ten Reasons Broadband is not a Public Utility.”

  • It provides an easy to understand baseline case of why the FCC’s consideration of Title II reclassification of broadband is unnecessary, unwarranted, unwise and unfair.
  • It is Part 49 of my FCC Open Internet Series.

***

FCC Open Internet Order Series

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

NetCompetition Statement on AT&T-DirecTV Merger

 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 18, 2014

Contact:  Scott Cleland 703-217-2407

 

The AT&T-DirecTV Merger Increases Competition & Consumer Choice, Providing:

A New Stronger Competitive Alternative to Cable’s Bundle; and

NetCompetition Statement on FCC Incentive Auction Rules

NetCompetition

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                           

May 15, 2014

Contact:  Scott Cleland --703-217-2407

 

FCC Rules Take the “Auction” & “Incentives” out of the Supposed “Incentive Auction”

Auction will under-earn with FCC thwarting market forces by picking winners & losers   

Highlight Video on Modernizing Communications Laws for American Consumers -- A NetCompetition Event

For those interested, please see a nine-minute highlight video of NetCompetition’s April 4th expert panel on making consumers, not technology, the organizing principle of any update of the obsolescing Communications Act.

The experts, Gene Kimmelman of Public Knowledge, Jeff Eisenach, of the American Enterprise Institute, Mark Cooper of the Consumer Federation of America, and Hal Singer of the Progressive Policy Institute, all discussed the merits of making consumers, not technology, the starting point and organizing principle of any update of the Communications Act.

Google’s Anti-Competitive Rap Sheet Warrants Prosecution Not Leniency – An Open Letter to European Commissioners

Dear European Commission Official,

 

Would Interpol, or any EU prosecutor, ever recommend pursuing a lenient settlement with their overall #1 worst offender -- without extracting any punishment, restitution, admission of wrongdoing, or deterrent effect -- rather than prosecuting the worst offender to the full extent of the law?

Would any other prosecutor publicly threaten swift prosecution against a high-profile defendant repeatedly and then give the defendant three chances to settle over a period of several months when the defendant’s first two proposed remedies proved to be demonstrablydeceptive in market tests?  

Of course not! That would be antithetical to the fair, honest, and effective administration of justice.

Then why, after its own investigation found Google to be dominant, and to have abused its dominance in four distinct ways, is DGComp strongly advocating that Google be protected from prosecution for clear violations of EU competition law?

The Multi-speed Internet is Getting More Faster Speeds -- Part 43 FCC Open Internet Series

The Internet has long had multiple speeds. And it constantly gets faster speeds via technological and commercial innovation, competition, and investment.

The Internet also has long met people’s diverse needs, wants and means for speed, with different technologies, pricing, and content delivery methods, and it will continue to do so.

Net neutrality activists’ latest rhetoric that opposes the FCC’s court-required update of its Open Internet rules, by implying that there haven’t been “slow and fast lanes” on the Internet before, is obviously factually wrong and misleading, both for consumers receiving content and for entities sending content.

Many in the media have fallen for this mass “fast lane” deception without thinking or questioning it.

First, isn’t it odd that those who routinely complain that the Internet is not fast enough oppose genuine FCC efforts to make the Internet faster?

Moreover, isn’t it ironic that the net neutrality activists -- who have long criticized the FCC for the U.S. falling behind in the world in broadband speeds, and long advocated for municipalities to create giga-bit fast lanes for some communities -- vehemently oppose FCC efforts to create “faster lane” Internet for those entities that need it and are willing to pay for it?

Pages

Q&A One Pager Debunking Net Neutrality Myths