You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2010-12-13 12:11
As the FreePress-led letter to the FCC made clear on Friday: "Paid prioritization is the antithesis of openness. Any framework that does not prohibit such economic discrimination arrangements is not real net neutrality."
What is "paid prioritization?"
Remember FreePress' last Uneconomics 101 lesson was that "above-cost pricing" was an "unfair business practice."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2010-12-08 14:31
The extent to which Level 3's business is underwater is the untold story behind Level 3's regulatory "hail Mary" claim that its Internet peering dispute with Comcast is somehow a net neutrality violation.
Why is Level 3 seeking a de facto Internet regulation bailout from the FCC?
First, Level 3 is a financially-sinking business with no legitimate growth prospects.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2010-11-22 16:54
Only FreePress would hold a press conference to release essentially a longer-version of its previously-debunked legal analysis calling for the FCC to regulate competitive broadband providers as Title II telephone public utilities.
The essence of the call, which made no news, was FreePress reiterated that the FCC should ignore:
For anyone that wants to examine in depth why FreePress' legal and policy analysis remains fatally-flawed and would cause an unmitigated disaster click: HERE...
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2010-11-16 20:30
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski signaled a major FCC policy pivot Monday, from a fourteen-month focus on regulating net neutrality to apparently a new singular focus on "the economy and jobs" -- in his annual speech before NARUC, the association of state utility regulators.
Takeaways from the FCC Chairman's speech.
First, this is a very significant speech to pay attention to, because the FCC is laying out what the states can expect from the FCC in the year ahead.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2010-11-03 13:46
What do the mid-term election results mean for the FCC?
First, FreePress' version of net neutrality was completely repudiated in the election.
Second, most of the FCC's business is not political or partisan -- and it need not be. (The 1996 Telecom Act was almost unanimous. And the overwhelming majority of FCC decisions are 5-0.)
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2010-10-18 12:30
The current harm to consumers from the latest unnecessary incident of retransmission brinksmanship is the clear result of FCC regulatory failure.
Fellow ardent free marketer, Randy May of the Free State Foundation, has a dead on piece that I highly recommend that exposes that the current broadcast retransmission negotiating process -- as no "market" that a free marketer would recognize.
The reason some consumers currently are blacked out from their favorite sports programming is because the FCC has known for a long time, that it has a broken, out-of-date, and counter-productive retransmission negotiation process, and that it has not done anything to bring the process into the 21st century or to correct the dysfunctional imbalance that causes predictable serial disputes that harm consumers.
Simply, if the FCC spent less time on trying to fix potential unproven problems, like net neutrality and Title II regulation for which the FCC does not have legal authority, and more time on fixing actual problems harming consumers on their watch that they do have the authority to fix -- American consumers would be much better off.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2010-09-23 18:53
Ever wonder why the net neutrality issue can't be resolved, despite all the many earnest efforts, negotiations, and compromises to resolve it over the last four years?
Before I recount FreePress’ ignominious longstanding record of opposing resolution of net neutrality, it is important to understand why FreePress is such a singularly destructive, and not a constructive, force in the net neutrality debate.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2010-09-02 13:45
What have we learned from the FCC's wise inaction this week, in deciding to not vote to declare broadband a Title II telephone service before the election, and to ask more questions in a further Open Internet regulation inquiry about specialized and mobile services?
#1 Stakeholder collaboration/negotiation works. The FCC apparently now better recognizes that the open industry collaborative dynamic that has been so consistently successful in resolving most every other major Internet issue over the last couple of decades, can also succeed in appropriately resolving the FCC's Open Internet concerns now -- if only given the time and flexibility to negotiate a workable outcome.
#2 Apparently net neutrality is not the popular populist political issue it has been touted to be. The September-October period before an election is when the real political rubber meets the road.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2010-09-01 13:11
NPR/WFAE host Tim Collins of Charlotte Talks hosted a very good hour-long radio show on net neutrality this morning featuring CDT's very able Andrew McDiarmid, promoting net neutrality/Title II regulation, and me opposing formal net neutrality/Title II regulation.
What those who follow this blog would find most amusing, was my defense of Google from the sand-blasting it has gotten from the extreme left for its attempt with Verizon to be constructive in trying to find a workable framework/compromise on net neutrality for the FCC.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2010-08-11 13:21
Google's self-interested proposal with Verizon on net neutrality legislation publicly spotlighted to many for the first time, Google's Machiavellian manipulation of Washington for competitive advantage, i.e. proactively seeking regulation of Google's competitors while ensuring Google remains unfettered by any regulation.
This piece will analyze: why Google surprised everyone; what's in this for Google; and why many like Skype, eBay, Facebook, and the TV business, should be very concerned with Google's Machiavellian positioning here.
Let's deconstruct the Google-Verizon net neutrality proposal from Google's perspective.