You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2017-04-11 11:02
At best the notions of net neutrality and consumer privacy are somewhat in tension.
At worst, they are in opposition, and harm consumer privacy as happened when the Wheeler-FCC subordinated the goal of what’s best for consumer privacy to the conflicting and overriding goal of what was best for imposing maximal, Title II net neutrality.
Net neutrality and consumer privacy are in tension because they are very different concepts, priorities, and approaches for the handling of information online.
However, the original tension between the FCC’s first concept of net neutrality and consumer privacy was very limited because the Martin-FCC’s 2005 Internet Policy Statement on net neutrality was an extension of the Powell-FCC’s “Internet Freedoms” concept of net neutrality, and both approaches were consumer-first, i.e. very clearly centered around what consumers could expect from the Internet.
What thrust them into the more opposing concepts that they are today?
It was when net neutrality flipped from being primarily a consumer-centric principle to an edge-provider centric principle defined by Google, Amazon, Facebook and Netflix; and from the enforcement of a general broadband nondiscrimination principle, to the preemptive imposition of “the strongest possible,” specific, utility rate regulation framework – i.e. Title II of the 1934 Communications Act -- on a competitive industry that had done nothing wrong to warrant it.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2017-04-03 15:58
Please see my latest The Hill op-ed: “Congress was right to save consumers from privacy rules imposed under net neutrality.”
Consumer privacy has been the biggest loser from net neutrality proponents’ politicization of privacy.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2017-02-28 13:48
New Trump FCC Chair Ajit Pai’s keynote speech on “Building the 5G Economy” at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona today spotlighted to the communications world that the U.S. FCC is going in a very different policy direction than that of the previous FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, who just happens to be speaking at the same event as a private citizen to a break-out session on “The Fourth Industrial Revolution.”
The fact that they are both at the largest communications event in the world delivering starkly divergent messages and visions, on the same day, provides an instructive and illuminating opportunity to juxtapose their contrasting policy approaches.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2017-01-30 15:00
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2017-01-26 17:45
House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans formally asked FCC Chairman Agit Pai to close the docket on the set-top box proceeding because it is no longer under active consideration, and because it “remains an unnecessary regulatory threat to the content creation and distribution industries” and casts a “shadow over investment and innovation.”
This is a wise, pro-competitive, pro-property rights, and good government request from Congress to the new Pai FCC.
The FCC should efficiently utilize this decision opportunity to employ the statutory sunset provision in the law to permanently sunset and remove this unnecessary and serious regulatory threat to competition, copyrighted contractual content and its creation, investment, and innovation.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2017-01-25 15:56
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2017-01-19 15:52
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2017-01-06 19:14
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2016-12-16 12:50
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2016-11-28 16:11
Please don’t miss my latest Daily Caller op-ed: “How U.S. Internet Commons Policies Lessen Growth Jobs & Security.”
It spotlights how U.S. Internet commons policies – where “free” means a price of zero and “open” means no property -- create winner-take all economic outcomes for the Netstablishment at the expense of everyone else.