You are here
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blacked out from their favorite sports programming is because the FCC has known for a long time, that it has a broken, out-of-date, and counter-productive retransmission negotiation process, and that it has not done anything to bring the process into the 21st century or to correct the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.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2010-08-09 18:09
First, it is even more clear that the FCC should give the legislative process time to play out on net neutrality.
While this is a legislative proposal of only two of the many major stakeholders in the net neutrality debate, it still sends a strong signal to Congress and the FCC that the stakeholder negotiating process -- that has been occurring over the last several weeks -- holds real potential for substantive progress and resolution, if the FCC is patient and gives the process the appropriate time and breathing room to play out.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2010-07-20 12:11
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July, 20 2010
Contact: Scott Cleland
FCC 706 Report: U.S. Broadband Cup is 5% Empty
FCC’s criticism misplaced; broadband industry has over not under achieved
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2010-07-13 18:12
Anyone that cares about freedom generally, and freedom of the press in particular, must read PFF Adam Theirer's outstanding Big Government expose/op-ed putting the spotlight on neo-marxist "FreePress:" "How America's Hugo Chavez Fan Club Plans to 'Reform' the Media Marketplace."
Thanks Adam. Forewarned is forearmed.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2010-07-13 11:04
For those who appreciate clarity of thought, please don't miss Dr. Jeff Eisenach's great op-ed in the Daily Caller: "Don’t drag broadband into the net neutrality morass."
Mr. Eisenach is right to spotlight and give credit to Clinton Administration FCC Chairman Bill Kennard's wisdom to allow broadband competition a chance to flourish by not saddling broadband with monopoly telephone regulation.
This FCC would be wise to emulate the proven success of the Kennard FCC's forward-looking broadband competition policy rather than pursue its current highly destructive and backward-looking "de-competition" policy.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2010-07-08 18:40
For an FCC that so assiduously respected the integrity of process to produce a consensus National Broadband Plan just a few short months ago, how could this same FCC come to abuse the integrity of process in its pursuit of Title II net neutrality authority, just a few months later?
How could the same FCC go from the predictable, open, consensus-driven process of developing the National Broadband Plan to the most unpredictable, closed, and non-consensus approach of the Title II net neutrality NOI?
How can an FCC, which supposedly heard loud and clear from Congress about the importance of the integrity of process in confirmation hearings held just last year, completely ignore letters to the FCC from a majority of Congress imploring the FCC to respect the Constitutional process that empowers the Congress, not the FCC, with the authority to set communications policy for the Nation?
Does not all integrity of process come entirely from respecting the Constitutional processes of separation of powers, due process, rule of law, equal protection, etc.?
How can the FCC maintain that they respect the integrity of process with the small "p" of the Adminstrative Procedures Act, when they disrespect the integrity of process with the large "P" of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
What's wrong with this picture?