You are here

Amazon

Top Ten Reasons to Oppose Broadband Utility Regulation – Part 50 Open Internet Order Series

 

Please see my latest Daily Caller op-ed: “Top Ten Reasons to Oppose Broadband Utility Regulation.”

It provides a great overview of the best arguments why the FCC reclassifying broadband as a Title II monopoly telephone service, is a very bad idea. 

  • It is Part 50 of my FCC Open Internet Series.

***

FCC Open Internet Order Series

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

Open Letter to Internet Association on Broadband Utility Regulation

 

Dear Executives of Internet Association Companies,

Have you thought through the global implications of your businesses’ public lobbying for regulating broadband like a public telephone utility? 

Possibly you are unaware that “The French government said it would push for a new European law later this year to classify Google and other Web giants like public utilities, forcing them to guarantee access to all services like phone operators. … We don’t want to become a digital colony of global Internet giants” said the French Economy Minister, per Wall Street Journal reporting.

As members of the global Internet giant association, and as global companies with large majorities of your current or future revenues coming from overseas, it could be beneficial to better think through the global implications of your high-profile policy support for new broadband utility regulation in the U.S.

Net Neutrality Rhetoric: “Believe it or not!”

 

With due credit to "Ripley's Believe it or Not!®," so much odd and bizarre is happening in Washington in the "name" of “net neutrality” that the topic calls for its own collection of: "Believe it or Not!®" oddities.

 

INTERNET FAST LANES:

 

Net Neutrality activists who have long condemned the FCC for not making the Internet fast enough now condemn the FCC for proposing to make the Internet faster!

 

Google and Amazon oppose the FCC enabling them to pay for fast-lane delivery of their online services when they both are launching very-costly, same-day, home delivery services!

 

NetCompetition Statement on FCC Open Internet NPRM

NetCompetition

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                        

May 15, 2014

Contact:  Scott Cleland                                                  

703-217-2407

 

FCC Consideration of Title II Broadband Regulation is a Blueprint for Uncertainty

Read AT&T’s FCC Filing that Totally Debunks Title II Reclassification

 

Given the avalanche of misinformation and manufactured hysteria by net neutrality proponents over the FCC’s proposed rulemaking to make the FCC’s Open Internet Order comply with the Appeals Court Verizon v. FCC decision, AT&T’s FCC filing here (and below) is a welcome and much-needed total debunking of the call for Title II reclassification of broadband.

For anyone, analyst, reporter, etc. who cares to really understand how Title II common carrier law and regulation actually would play out in the real world, not in the nostalgic imaginations of people who have no real life experience in this matter, this filing eviscerates Title II proponents’ partial, over-simplified, inexperienced, and ill-informed thinking.

Beware proponents of Title II reclassification; if you read this AT&T rebuttal you will begin to comprehend the depth of vacuousness of arguments for reclassification of broadband and you will realize that manufactured-public-perception, is no match for facts, reality and real world experience.

The “Aristechracy” Demands Users Subsidize Their Net Neutrality Free Lunch – Part 45 FCC Open Internet Order Series

The Net Neutrality movement has lost its way. It’s now perversely focused on advancing Internet companies’ economic interests at the expense of Internet user interests.

The Net neutrality movement’s main priority used to be about ensuring that Internet users have the freedom to access the legal content of their choice.

Now they have become singularly-focused on securing permanent economic subsidies for edge companies by demanding the FCC set a zero-price for all downstream Internet traffic via reclassifying broadband as a Title II common carrier service.

Essentially, what their latest net neutrality scheme would mean is that Internet users would be forced to shoulder the entire cost burden of maintaining and upgrading America’s expensive Internet infrastructure without a fair-share contribution from the top Internet companies for the infrastructure costs they cause as a result of their dominant consumption of the nation’s daily downstream bandwidth.  

Simply, net neutrality has transmogrified from preserving users’ Internet freedoms to forcing all Internet users to fully subsidize all Internet companies’ bandwidth usage bill no matter if they use a particular edge companies’ services or not.

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?

Online Video Competition’s Tipping Point Has Tipped – My Daily Caller Op-ed

Please don’t miss my new Daily Caller op-ed: “Online Video Competition’s Tipping Point Has Tipped.”

It pulls together how regulatory developments, much faster wireless networks, and several new entrants with deep pockets are converging to create a tipping point for over-the-top, online video competition.

It is Part 25 of my Broadband Internet Pricing Freedom series. 

 

***

Broadband Internet Pricing Freedom Series

Part 1: Netflix' Glass House Temper Tantrum Over Broadband Usage Fees [7-26-11]

Diverging US-EU Internet Trade Visions

Please don’t miss my latest Daily Caller op-ed: “Diverging US-EU Internet Trade Visions.”

It spotlights that starkly diverging US-EU net neutrality and data protection policies complicate negotiations for the nascent and pending Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) trade agreement.

This is Part 6 of my “World Changing the Internet” research series.

***

World Changing Internet Series

Net Neutrality’s about Consumer Welfare not Corporate Welfare for Netflix

Billionaire Netflix CEO Reed Hastings objects to Netflix having to pay anything at all for Netflix’ gorging on 30% of the Internet’s North American bandwidth. In a Netflix corporate blogpost billionaire Reed Hastings rails against the perceived injustice of Netflix paying Internet usage-based pricing like consumers do.

At core, Mr. Hastings now derides traditional consumer-defined net neutrality, which ensures consumers the freedom to access the legal content of their choice – as “weak” net neutrality.

Meanwhile, he is attempting to rebrand his new self-serving, corporate-defined net neutrality, which ensures the largest corporate users of the Internet pay nothing for their largest usage of interconnection bandwidth -- as “strong” net neutrality.

Mr. Hastings’ position clearly prioritizes corporate welfare above consumer welfare.

Pages

Q&A One Pager Debunking Net Neutrality Myths