You are here

NetCompetition

7 Huge Flaws in FCC’s Title II Privacy NPRM; NetCompetition Comments

Summary: It is rare for an FCC proceeding to be so wrong-headed and ill-conceived that it has seven huge flaws. Tellingly this one does.

 

  1. The FCC is trying to force-fit inherently-irreconcilable, telephone closed-ecosystem privacy rules into its opposite -- a broadband open-system Internet.

  2. This approach is so convoluted and confusing there is no way for an average consumer to understand what part of their privacy is or is not now protected by the FCC and what part is or is not protected by the FTC.

  3. For privacy, the FCC’s Title II decision has been perversely subtractive in eliminating all FTC broadband consumer privacy protections, during the year-plus period while the FCC tries to figure out what FCC consumer privacy protections will be.  

Court Preview: Activists Expose Net Neutrality’s Biggest Legal Problems

Do not let the FCC’s likely unlawful means of broadband Internet regulation, i.e. Title II, distract you from the additional likelihood that two primary ends of supposed net neutrality “policy canon” i.e. bans against “paid prioritization” and “two-sided markets” (only users should pay), are also likely unlawful, even under Title II, sans new legislation.

A preview of oral arguments December 4 before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the legal challenge to the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order warrants more than the already well-covered standard comparison of both sides legal arguments over the legality of Title II.

In the 2014 Verizon v. FCC decision, that overturned much of the FCC’s net neutrality “effort to compel broadband providers to treat all Internet traffic the same regardless of source,” Judge David Tatel’s starting point was what does the FCC want to compel from others and does it have the legal authority and latitude to do so – sans new legislation.

(This analysis assumes the near obvious that Judge Tatel will lead and write this decision.)   

NetCompetition Event: Modernizing Communications Law for American Consumers

Thinking and Starting Anew:

Modernizing Communications Law for American Consumers

Join NetCompetition and an esteemed panel to discuss how Congress can best make consumers, not technology, the organizing principle of a 21st century Communications Act framework that serves and protects consumers while fostering dynamic innovation, competition, and growth in an evolving marketplace:

 

Where: 121 Cannon House Office Building, Washington DC 20515

When: Friday, April 4, 2014

Time: 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM

 

Presenter and Moderator: Scott Cleland, NetCompetition

Panelists:

A Modern Vision for the FCC -- A NetCompetition Event 11-4-13

A Modern Vision for the FCC: How the FCC Can Modernize its Policy Approaches for the 21st Century

Join NetCompetition® and an esteemed panel to discuss: how the FCC can modernize its policy approaches to adapt to modern technology and market realities and unleash innovation, investment and consumer welfare in the 21st century global economy. The panel will discuss:

  • The transition to all Internet-Protocol communications networks;
  • Spectrum incentive auctions and building the long-term spectrum pipeline; and
  • Internet ecosystem competition and the future of the FCC.

Where: 2322 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515

When: Monday, November 4, 2013

Time: 12:00 PM - 1:30 PM

Real vs. Contrived “Modern” FCC Policy Thinking – Part 20 Obsolete Communications Law Series

Just like the wisdom that one cannot make a silk purse from a sow’s ear; one cannot make “modern” FCC policy from obsolete communications law.

Apparently that is not stopping Former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt and Greg Rosston from trying in their new white paper: “Articulating a Modern Approach to FCC Competition Policy.”   

Their paper contrives:  three different competition policy approaches: the classicrole of regulating terms and conditions of sale, the modernrole of using various tools to create largely deregulated, multi-firm, competitive markets, and the laissez-faire approach of believing that unregulated markets, even if monopolized, will produce the best outcome.”

Q&A One Pager Debunking Net Neutrality Myths