About Scott Cleland
![]() |
|
You are hereTop Ten Deficiencies in FCC’s Title II Record
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2014-12-08 18:12
Will this FCC legal team learn from the legal mistakes of their predecessors and ensure the FCC has a thorough and a sufficient legal record to justify their legal theories, given that the FCC already has failed twice in crafting legal net neutrality regulations in Comcast v. FCC in 2010 and again in Verizon v. FCC in 2014? Kindly, the U.S. Court of Appeals has provided the FCC a roadmap to follow to legally justify their net neutrality rules under Section 706. It is telling that the court provided no similar legal “roadmap” for Title II reclassification. That’s because Title II reclassification would require successfully backtracking decades of opposing FCC and court precedents and remixing FCC authorities in new and imaginative ways to traverse uncharted legal territory. Simply the court implicitly recognizes there is no roadmap for uncharted territory. The last outcome the FCC should want, is for their third attempt to craft legal net neutrality rules-of-the-road to fail, because the FCC failed to control what the FCC can and should control, building a predictably thorough and sufficient record, and abiding by required, well-known, administrative and comment procedures. Simply, the FCC does not want to fail such a high-profile legal test, a third time, because in an unnecessary rush, the FCC did not do all their homework or follow all the test’s basic administrative rules. There are at least ten predictable, potential major deficiencies in the FCC’s record, anyone of which could doom the legality of the FCC’s rulemaking, if not appropriately addressed and justified in the record. Top Ten Deficiencies in the FCC’s Title II Record
In short, the court provided the FCC no legal roadmap to justify applying Title II to impose net neutrality. This legal uncharted territory obviously demands the best possible FCC record, if the FCC hopes to avoid a very-likely legal “strike three!”
*** FCC Open Internet Order Series Part 1: The Many Vulnerabilities of an Open Internet [9-24-09] Part 2: Why FCC proposed net neutrality regs unconstitutional, NPR Online Op-ed [9-24-09] Part 3: Takeaways from FCC's Proposed Open Internet Regs [10-22-09] Part 4: How FCC Regulation Would Change the Internet [10-30-09] Part 5: Is FCC Declaring 'Open Season' on Internet Freedom? [11-17-09] Part 6: Critical Gaps in FCC's Proposed Open Internet Regulations [11-30-09] Part 7: Takeaways from the FCC's Open Internet Further Inquiry [9-2-10] Part 8: An FCC "Data-Driven" Double Standard? [10-27-10] Part 9: Election Takeaways for the FCC [11-3-10] Part 10: Irony of Little Openness in FCC Open Internet Reg-making [11-19-10] Part 11: FCC Regulating Internet to Prevent Companies from Regulating Internet [11-22-10] Part 12: Where is the FCC's Legitimacy? [11-22-10] Part 13: Will FCC Preserve or Change the Internet? [12-17-10] Part 14: FCC Internet Price Regulation & Micro-management? [12-20-10] Part 15: FCC Open Internet Decision Take-aways [12-21-10] Part 16: FCC Defines Broadband Service as "BIAS"-ed [12-22-10] Part 17: Why FCC's Net Regs Need Administration/Congressional Regulatory Review [1-3-11] Part 18: Welcome to the FCC-Centric Internet [1-25-11] Part 19: FCC's Net Regs in Conflict with President's Pledges [1-26-11] Part 20: Will FCC Respect President's Call for "Least Burdensome" Regulation? [2-3-11] Part 21: FCC's In Search of Relevance in 706 Report [5-23-11] Part 22: The FCC's public wireless network blocks lawful Internet traffic [6-13-11] Part 23: Why FCC Net Neutrality Regs Are So Vulnerable [9-8-11] Part 24: Why Verizon Wins Appeal of FCC's Net Regs [9-30-11] Part 25: Supreme Court likely to leash FCC to the law [10-10-12] Part 26: What Court Data Roaming Decision Means for FCC Open Internet Order [12-4-12] Part 27: Oops! Crawford's Model Broadband Nation, Korea, Opposes Net Neutrality [2-26-13] Part 28: Little Impact on FCC Open Internet Order from SCOTUS Chevron Decision [5-21-13] Part 29: More Legal Trouble for FCC's Open Internet Order & Net Neutrality [6-2-13] Part 30: U.S. Competition Beats EU Regulation in Broadband Race [6-21-13] Part 31: Defending Google Fiber's Reasonable Network Management [7-30-13] Part 32: Capricious Net Neutrality Charges [8-7-13] Part 33: Why FCC won't pass Appeals Court's oral exam [9-2-13] Part 34: 5 BIG Implications from Court Signals on Net Neutrality - A Special Report [9-13-13] Part 35: Dial-up Rules for the Broadband Age? My Daily Caller Op-ed Rebutting Marvin Ammori's [11-6-13] Part 36: Nattering Net Neutrality Nonsense Over AT&T's Sponsored Data Offering [1-6-14] Part 37: Is Net Neutrality Trying to Mutate into an Economic Entitlement? [1-12-14] Part 38: Why Professor Crawford Has Title II Reclassification All Wrong [1-16-14] Part 39: Title II Reclassification Would Violate President's Executive Order [1-22-14] Part 40: The Narrowing Net Neutrality Dispute [2-24-14] Part 41: FCC’s Open Internet Order Do-over – Key Going Forward Takeaways [3-5-14] Part 42: Net Neutrality is about Consumer Benefit not Corporate Welfare for Netflix [3-21-14] Part 43: The Multi-speed Internet is Getting More Faster Speeds [4-28-14] Part 44: Reality Check on the Electoral Politics of Net Neutrality [5-2-14] Part 45: The “Aristechracy” Demands Consumers Subsidize Their Net Neutrality Free Lunch [5-8-14] Part 46: Read AT&T’s Filing that Totally Debunks Title II Reclassification [5-9-14] Part 47: Statement on FCC Open Internet NPRM [5-15-14] Part 48: Net Neutrality Rhetoric: “Believe it or not!” [5-16-14] Part 49: Top Ten Reasons Broadband Internet is not a Public Utility [5-20-14] Part 50: Top Ten Reasons to Oppose Broadband Utility Regulation [5-28-14] Part 51: Google’s Title II Broadband Utility Regulation Risks [6-3-14] Part 52: Exposing Netflix’ Biggest Net Neutrality Deceptions [6-5-14] Part 53: Silicon Valley Naïve on Broadband Regulation (3 min video) [6-15-14] Part 54: FCC’s Netflix Internet Peering Inquiry – Top Ten Questions [6-17-14] Part 55: Interconnection is Different for Internet than Railroads or Electricity [6-26-14] Part 56: Top Ten Failures of FCC Title II Utility Regulation [7-7-14] Part 57: NetCompetition Statement & Comments on FCC Open Internet Order Remand [7-11-14] Part 58: MD Rules Uber is a Common Carrier – Will FCC Agree? [8-6-14] Part 59: Internet Peering Doesn’t Need Fixing – NetComp CommActUpdate Submission [8-11-14] Part 60: Why is Silicon Valley Rebranding/Redefining Net Neutrality? [9-2-14] Part 61: the FCC’s Redefinition of Broadband Competition [9-4-14] Part 62: NetCompetition Comments to FCC Opposing Title II Utility Regulation of Broadband [9-9-14] Part 63: De-competition De-competition De-competition [9-14-14] Part 64: The Forgotten Consumer in the Fast Lane Net Neutrality Debate [9-18-14] Part 65: FTC Implicitly Urges FCC to Not Reclassify Broadband as a Utility [9-23-14] Part 66: Evaluating the Title II Rainbow of Proposals for the FCC to Go Nuclear [9-29-14] Part 67: Why Waxman’s FCC Internet Utility Regulation Plan Would Be Unlawful [10-5-14] Part 68: Silicon Valley’s Biggest Internet Mistake [10-15-14] Part 69: Will the FCC Break the Internet? [10-22-14] Part 70: Net Neutrality Has Become an Industrial Policy [10-31-14] Part 71: The Federal Communications Congress? [11-7-14] Part 72: The Top Ten Adjectives to Describe Net Neutrality [11-11-14] Part 73: Top Ten Questions to Ask About Title II Regulation of the Internet [11-20-14] Part 74: The Only Legitimate FCC Hybrid Net Neutrality Approach [12-1-14] Part 75: Who Pays for Net Neutrality? [12-3-14]
» |