You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2013-10-21 17:19
If you are interested in learning the linchpin issue to watch to discern whether the FCC’s competition policy will be modern or nostalgist directionally, don’t miss my Daily Caller Op-ed: “The Modern FCC Competition-Policy Linchpin” – here.
Modernization Consensus Series
Part 1: Implications of Google's Broadband Plans for Competition and Regulation - Part 1 Modernization Consensus Series [1-28-13]
Defending Google Fiber’s Broadband Pricing Freedom to Price Discriminate – Part 19 Broadband Pricing Freedom SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2013-10-18 12:18
Google deserves kudos for standing up to net neutrality critics who want no restrictions on the use of their broadband service, and for standing firm on principle in its new terms of service that Google enjoys the broadband freedom to price-discriminate between consumer and commercial customers, and also between broadband use that doesn’t compete with Google Fiber, and broadband use that does compete with Google Fiber, because the latter would undermine Google Fiber’s ability to earn a return on its substantial infrastructure investment.
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.”
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2013-09-23 17:10
If the Washington Post had fact-checked Save-the-Internet’s spin, or even sought out an alternative viewpoint for balance, they easily could have avoided the obvious fundamental factual mistakes in their article: “What Europe can teach us about keeping the Internet open and free.”
First, Mr. Fung inaccurately attributed Save-the-Internet’s extreme and highly-controversial definition of net neutrality -- “all Internet traffic, no matter where’s its going or who it came from, should be treated the same” -- as the FCC’s “concept of net neutrality,” when the FCC’s compromise net neutrality definition was much less controversial and very different than the Post’s Save-the-Internet characterization.
Video: Why FCC Title II Reclassification of Broadband is a Legal Non-Starter – Part 6 of Title II Reclassification SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Sun, 2013-09-22 21:08
Expect net neutrality proponents to pressure the FCC to reclassify broadband as a Title II common carrier telephone service, if as many expect, the D.C. Appeals Court overturns much, or possibly all, of the FCC’s Open Internet Order in the coming months.
Observers of the September 9th oral argument heard Judges Tatel and Silberman strongly question the legality of applying common carrier-like regulation to an unregulated information service.
If you want to know why it would be a legal non-starter for the FCC to then completely reverse course and try to reclassify broadband as Title II common carrier service, please listen to my video explanation, starting at 7:52. (The written version of my argument is part 5 of this post.)
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2013-09-18 13:47
Professor Susan Crawford’s Bloomberg op-ed, “New FCC Head Must Reclaim Authority over Telecom,” exposes a profound lack of substance, in being unable to identify any real market problem warranting FCC regulation.
Let’s review Professor Crawford’s litany of contrived policy problems.
First, she charges that ISPs are working “to ensure no regulator has any real authority over them.” No, ISPs are pointing out the unique excessiveness of having THREE government entities having authority over them on the same general matters. ISPs are not asking for any reduction in authority for the DOJ or the FTC. Specifically, Verizon is asking the D.C. Appeals Court to decide if the FCC exceeded its legal authority in imposing prophylactic common-carrier-like regulation on companies that have not done anything wrong.
5 BIG Implications from Court Signals on Net Neutrality – A Special Report -- Part 34 FCC Open Internet Order SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2013-09-13 12:54
Economic rationality, competition, and broadband pricing freedom are the big winners, and common carrier-like net neutrality was the big loser, if the Appeals Court panel decides Verizon v. FCC as expected.
Monday’s intense tag-team grilling of the FCC’s lawyer by Judges Tatel and Silberman left most observers thinking the Court will decide it is illegal for the FCC to impose common-carrier-like regulation on broadband providers -- regardless of what else they decide.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2013-09-09 16:21
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 9, 2013
Contact: Scott Cleland
“A Very Good Day for Broadband Pricing Freedom”
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2013-09-02 21:18
September 9th looks to be a challenging day for the FCC.
For many good reasons, the FCC will face a skeptical D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel Monday in oral arguments for Verizon vs. FCC. The FCC will be defending its Open Internet order which mandated neutrality.
Overall the court will be skeptical because the FCC largely ignored the law, Congress, the facts, and the Constitution. Essentially, the FCC made up an industry problem that does not exist in order to repurpose itself for the Internet age. Simply, the FCC is not asking for slack from the court (i.e. Chevron Deference), it’s basically asking for carte blanche to grant itself unbounded authority going forward.
Verizon enjoys the advantage in this case because it need prevail in only one of its several strong challenges to the FCC’s order, while the FCC must convince the court to completely reject all of Verizon’s arguments.
Specifically, why will this court be skeptical here?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2013-08-20 17:30
Information may want to be free, but physical networks are costly.
Few proponents of net neutrality appreciate the trillions of dollars of investment it has taken to build and upgrade the Internet’s vast and varied infrastructure that we all enjoy today. Simply, the Internet is not free of cost.
Economical policies have made the Internet universal and have enabled users to access the content, apps, and devices of their choice – what net neutrality is supposedly all about. On the other hand, uneconomical policies that discourage economic growth, return-on-investment, or respect for property can have unintended consequences and can threaten the proverbial goose that lays the golden eggs.