4-min video explaining what to expect from Verizon v. FCC decision

Please view this four-minute video by Mike Wendy where I explain what to expect from the D.C. Court of Appeals decision in Verizon v. FCC 

I explain:

  • Why there won’t be much change for consumers as a result of the decision;
  • Why Title II reclassification is very unlikely;
  • Why neither side is likely to appeal to the Supreme Court; and
  • Why there is a chance for more reasonable cost sharing of Internet infrastructure costs that would be to the benefit of consumers.

Thanks to Mike Wendy for the video.

 

Exposing Netflix’ Extraordinary Net Neutrality Arbitrage

Netflix’ defensive reaction to the Appeals Court Verizon v. FCC decision in its recent shareholder letter speaks volumes about Netflix’s unique and extraordinary net neutrality regulatory arbitrage. It also begs much more scrutiny.

This analysis exposes: how deceptive Netflix has been to its investors about its regulatory risk; how critical Netflix’ misrepresentation of net neutrality to investors has been to its entire economic model; and how relatively wasteful and irresponsible Netflix is in its utilization of the Internet’s bandwidth.

Title II Reclassification Would Violate the President’s Executive Order on “Improving Regulation”

Yet another major obstacle to net neutrality activists’ call for the FCC to reclassify broadband as a common-carrier service is the President’s 2011 Executive Order on “Improving Regulation.”

By way of background, just weeks after the FCC passed its Open Internet Order (3-2) the President issued Executive Order 13563Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.”

Google’s Empty Privacy Promises for Nest, Contacts, etc. – Part 38 Google Disrespect for Privacy Series

As Google’s pervasively-invasive, track-to-target, advertising-ambitions continue to metastasize throughout people’s lives and physical space -- via contact lens monitoring, Google Glass recording, Nest home sensors, self-driving car tracking, Internet of things listening devices, etc. -- Google’s privacy promises simply don’t have credibility.

Why Professor Crawford Has Title II Reclassification All Wrong

Recently the leading public voice of Title II reclassification of broadband, Harvard Law Professor Susan Crawford, assertedAll the FCC has to do is change their mind and say, ‘We got it wrong.’ [The FCC] has ample political congressional authority to do that, this is just a political battle. The FCC is concerned that if it acts to carry out this administrative relabeling, it will lose half its budget and half its staff.

The FCC did not get it wrong. Professor Crawford and supporters of reclassification have it all wrong.  

There are three key problems with Professor Crawford’s reclassification position:

Hear Cleland/Crawford Debate Common Carrier Regulation on WNYC Radio – 13 min

For those who want to hear some of the best arguments and rebuttals for/against Title II reclassification of broadband, please listen to the 13 minute back-and-forth between Professor Susan Crawford and I today.

  • Harvard Law Professor Crawford is the leading proponent for common carrier regulation of broadband.
  • Click here for the audio stream.

It’s a good precursor of the debate ahead. 

  • It is also part 8 of my Title II Reclassification Research Series

Title II Reclassification Series

NetCompetition Statement on Verizon v. FCC Court Decision

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

January 14, 2014

Contact:  Scott Cleland 703-217-2407

Court Upholds FCC’s “General Authority to Regulate” Broadband in Verizon v. FCC, But Denies FCC Authority to Impose Common-Carrier-like Regulation of Broadband.  This win-win, Could Settle into a de Facto Net Neutrality Peace, if Parties Don’t Appeal

WASHINGTON D.C. – The following quotes addressing the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Verizon v. FCC decision may be attributed to Scott Cleland, Chairman of NetCompetition:

Is Net Neutrality Trying to Mutate into an Economic Entitlement?

Net neutrality activist opposition to AT&T’s new Sponsored Data offering exposes that the purpose of “net neutrality/open Internet” is not just about protecting consumers and free speech, or preventing anti-competitive behavior.

Those calling for an FCC investigation of AT&T’s Sponsored Data are trying to mutate the “net neutrality/open Internet” debate to also be about whether or not there should be permanent economic entitlements, i.e. downstream “zero-price” subsidies, for edge websites and applications – to “subsidize creativity” and start-up innovation via an explicit FCC ban on network termination charges.

Translation:  all websites and applications should be entitled, by “open Internet” network design, to no cost Internet distribution/access to consumers forever, regardless of the costs that their services cause everyone else to pay for.

Google’s Robots and Creeping Militarization -- My Daily Caller Op-ed

Please see my latest Daily Caller op-ed:  “Google’s Robots and Creeping Militarization.”

  • It explains how the U.S. military is on path to become Google’s largest customer and why Google likely has a closer working relationship with the NSA than it acknowledges publicly.  

It is Part 20 of my Google Spying Series.

***

Google Spying Series

Part 1: All the Blackmail-able Info that 'J. Edgar Google' Collects on You [7-17-08]

3 min video: Why We Need a Modern Communications Law

To learn why America needs to modernize its obsolete communications laws, please take three minutes to view this video where I explain why -- here.  

Many thanks to Dan Berninger, Founder of the Voice Communications Exchange, for producing this video "VCXC Examines the Future of Communications."  

Pages

Q&A One Pager Debunking Net Neutrality Myths