You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2014-01-24 15:42
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.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2014-01-22 09:47
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2014-01-16 17:25
Recently the leading public voice of Title II reclassification of broadband, Harvard Law Professor Susan Crawford, asserted “All 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:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2014-01-15 12:32
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.
It’s a good precursor of the debate ahead.
Title II Reclassification Series
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Sun, 2014-01-12 21:12
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.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2013-11-06 09:19
Please see my latest Daily Caller op-ed: “Dial-up Rules for the Broadband Age?” -- here -- which rebuts Marvin Ammori’s Wired op-ed: “We’re about to Lose Net Neutrality – and the Internet as we know it.”
This is Part 35 of the FCC Open Internet Order Series.
FCC Open Internet Order Series
Part 1: The Many Vulnerabilities of an Open Internet [9-24-09]
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2013-10-28 18:50
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:
Where: 2322 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
When: Monday, November 4, 2013
Time: 12:00 PM - 1:30 PM
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2013-09-23 17:10
If the Washington Post had fact-checked Save-the-Internet’s spin, or even sought out an alternative viewpoint for balance, they easily could have avoided the obvious fundamental factual mistakes in their article: “What Europe can teach us about keeping the Internet open and free.”
First, Mr. Fung inaccurately attributed Save-the-Internet’s extreme and highly-controversial definition of net neutrality -- “all Internet traffic, no matter where’s its going or who it came from, should be treated the same” -- as the FCC’s “concept of net neutrality,” when the FCC’s compromise net neutrality definition was much less controversial and very different than the Post’s Save-the-Internet characterization.
Video: Why FCC Title II Reclassification of Broadband is a Legal Non-Starter – Part 6 of Title II Reclassification SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Sun, 2013-09-22 21:08
Expect net neutrality proponents to pressure the FCC to reclassify broadband as a Title II common carrier telephone service, if as many expect, the D.C. Appeals Court overturns much, or possibly all, of the FCC’s Open Internet Order in the coming months.
Observers of the September 9th oral argument heard Judges Tatel and Silberman strongly question the legality of applying common carrier-like regulation to an unregulated information service.
If you want to know why it would be a legal non-starter for the FCC to then completely reverse course and try to reclassify broadband as Title II common carrier service, please listen to my video explanation, starting at 7:52. (The written version of my argument is part 5 of this post.)
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2013-09-18 13:47
Professor Susan Crawford’s Bloomberg op-ed, “New FCC Head Must Reclaim Authority over Telecom,” exposes a profound lack of substance, in being unable to identify any real market problem warranting FCC regulation.
Let’s review Professor Crawford’s litany of contrived policy problems.
First, she charges that ISPs are working “to ensure no regulator has any real authority over them.” No, ISPs are pointing out the unique excessiveness of having THREE government entities having authority over them on the same general matters. ISPs are not asking for any reduction in authority for the DOJ or the FTC. Specifically, Verizon is asking the D.C. Appeals Court to decide if the FCC exceeded its legal authority in imposing prophylactic common-carrier-like regulation on companies that have not done anything wrong.