Time Warner Cable

Rep. Henry Waxman, Ranking Member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, wrote the FCC to propose that the FCC, in its pending Open Internet order remand, “reclassif[y] broadband providers as telecommunications services and then using the modern [Title I] authority of section 706 to set bright-line rules to prevent blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization.”

Please see this <3 minute video here on “Why Promoting Muni-Broadband is a Ridiculously Bad Idea.”

• Kudos and thanks to Mike Wendy of Media Freedom for the production of the video!

***

Big GoverNet Series

Part 1:  Cities learning there is no wireless "free lunch" [9-20-07]

While proposing to follow the D.C. Circuit Court’s roadmap in Verizon v. FCC to create a legal FCC regulatory framework for the Internet Age under the FCC’s 706 authorities, the FCC also invited proposals to potentially subject broadband to Title II common carrier utility regulation.

The FCC’s invitation has prompted a “rainbow of policy and legal proposals” that would explore “new ideas for protecting and promoting the open Internet” by imposing Title II telecommunications regulation on America’s Internet infrastructure.

The FTC implicitly laid down an important jurisdictional, political, and public marker against FCC reclassification of broadband as a utility, in its recent FCC filing in the FCC’s Section 706 inquiry proceeding.

Respectfully outside of the Open Internet proceeding considering whether to reclassify broadband information services as a Title II common carrier (utility) telecommunication service, the FTC officially and deftly introduced key legal facts into the overall FCC record – that deftly have the practical and legal effect of opposing FCC reclassification of broadband Internet access service as a Title II common carrier – on the record.

Please see my latest Daily Caller op-ed: “The Forgotten Consumer in the Fast Lane Net Neutrality Debate” – here.

• It explains how the whole “no fast lane” argument is misdirection that serves Silicon Valley’s interests at the expense of what’s best for empowering consumers.
• It is Part 64 in my FCC Open Internet Order Series.

***

FCC Open Internet Order Series

Please read my Daily Caller op-ed: “De-competition De-competition De-competition” here.

• De-competition is regulation that undermines competition in order to justify more regulation.

As one can see from the “de-competition” series below, this isn’t the first time the FCC has turned to de-competition policy.

***

FCC De-Competition Series

Part 1:Harms of a Potential New FCC De-Competition Policy – Reply Comments to FCC Open Internet NPRM [4-5-10]

FCC Open Internet Order Remand Request for Comments (GN Docket No. 14-28) Submitted by: Scott Cleland, Chairman of NetCompetition, September 9, 2014

The case against the FCC regulating broadband as a telephone utility is overwhelming. Please see eight strong arguments against FCC Title II reclassification of broadband below.

The Summary Case against FCC Title II Reclassification of Broadband

1. The FCC rejected Title II reclassification in 2010 for many good reasons.

2. Broadband info services classification is consistent with law, national policy, and FCC precedent.

What is the FCC’s definition of “competition?” That is the defining question and take-away from FCC Chairman Wheeler’s latest broadband speech, “The Facts and Future of Broadband Competition.”  

Tellingly the Chairman said: “Since my first day as Chairman of the FCC my mantra has been consistent and concise: Competition, Competition, Competition.” Well then, it seems especially important to understand exactly what the FCC Chairman means when he says the FCC is singularly focused on “Competition.”  

There are two core reasons the FCC should not try to preempt State muni-broadband laws.

1. The Supreme Court has already indicated it would be unconstitutional.  
2. It would be anti-competitive, the opposite of the FCC’s statutory purpose and legal mandate.

I.  Why FCC Preemption of States Rights would be Unconstitutional

First, the Supreme Court already has decided this issue effectively in favor of state rights. In Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League (2004) the Supreme Court rejected federal preemption of state prohibitions on telecom services. It specifically rejected the use of the FCC’s Title II section 253(a) authority to preempt state prohibitions of localities offering telecom services on constitutional federalism grounds.

Pro-regulation interests often resort to highly misleading arguments to advance their cause. Fortunately that kind of deception ultimately exposes the weakness of their underlying argument and public policy position.

To promote Netflix’ “strong” version of net neutrality regulation and to oppose the Comcast-TWC acquisition, Consumerist just framed a very deceptive whopper competition argument: “Comcast says mobile data is competitive, but it costs $2k to stream Breaking Bad over LTE.”