You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2013-12-06 09:06
The op-ed provides a foundational answer to both:
This is Part 21 of my Obsolete Communications Law Series.
FYI: See additional background below: two key PowerPoint presentations & my Obsolete Communications Law Series.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2013-12-02 17:38
Some wireless competitors and the DOJ/OSTP are urging the FCC to effectively change their spectrum aggregation rules to treat low-band spectrum-technology <1 GHz competitively different than high-band spectrum-technology >1 GHz.
If the FCC complies, it effectively would subdivide the current spectrum marketplace into two technology markets: <1GHz and >1GHz, for the first time in twenty years of spectrum auction history. It also would set the precedent for the FCC to arbitrarily subdivide the spectrum market further in future auctions based on the FCC’s latest technology-mix prognostications at that time.
Big picture, it would represent a regression back towards the 1980s pre-auction period when the FCC, not competitive market auctions, decided which company got what spectrum, and how certain spectrum was allocated.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Sat, 2013-11-23 18:21
Mr. Ammori, one of Google’s and Free Culture’s most able defenders, comes to the public defense of Google in his recent USA Today op-ed “Blame the NSA not Facebook & Google.”
He publicly castigates privacy advocates for doing their jobs, stating: “blaming tech companies for the NSA’s overreach isn’t just ignorant, but dangerous.”
As most understand, ad hominem attacks are the refuge of those who know the facts are not on their side.
Nevertheless Mr. Ammori does us all a favor for elevating the important public question of whether or not Google, in particular, deserves any blame for its significant role in the NSA spy scandals.
First, let’s address whether it is “ignorant” to blame Google for complicity in NSA spying. Consider the following facts.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2013-11-19 15:24
America's dominance of the Internet has peaked. Read why and what it means.
World Changing Internet Series
Part 1: Seven Ways the World is Changing the Internet
Part 2: Twitter’s Realpolitik & the Sovereign-ization of the Internet
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2013-11-14 16:06
Broadband Internet Pricing Freedom Series
Part 1: Netflix' Glass House Temper Tantrum Over Broadband Usage Fees [7-26-11]
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2013-11-06 09:19
Please see my latest Daily Caller op-ed: “Dial-up Rules for the Broadband Age?” -- here -- which rebuts Marvin Ammori’s Wired op-ed: “We’re about to Lose Net Neutrality – and the Internet as we know it.”
This is Part 35 of the FCC Open Internet Order Series.
FCC Open Internet Order Series
Part 1: The Many Vulnerabilities of an Open Internet [9-24-09]
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2013-11-01 18:16
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2013-10-31 18:09
Please don’t miss my new white paper: A Modern Vision for the FCC: How the FCC Can Modernize its Policy Approaches for the 21st Century (here/PDF).
NetCompetition Capitol Hill Event:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2013-10-28 18:50
A Modern Vision for the FCC: How the FCC Can Modernize its Policy Approaches for the 21st Century
Join NetCompetition® and an esteemed panel to discuss: how the FCC can modernize its policy approaches to adapt to modern technology and market realities and unleash innovation, investment and consumer welfare in the 21st century global economy. The panel will discuss:
Where: 2322 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
When: Monday, November 4, 2013
Time: 12:00 PM - 1:30 PM
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2013-10-14 19:41
Just like the wisdom that one cannot make a silk purse from a sow’s ear; one cannot make “modern” FCC policy from obsolete communications law.
Apparently that is not stopping Former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt and Greg Rosston from trying in their new white paper: “Articulating a Modern Approach to FCC Competition Policy.”
Their paper contrives: “three different competition policy approaches: the classicrole of regulating terms and conditions of sale, the modernrole of using various tools to create largely deregulated, multi-firm, competitive markets, and the laissez-faire approach of believing that unregulated markets, even if monopolized, will produce the best outcome.”