Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2014-05-15 17:47
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 15, 2014
Contact: Scott Cleland --703-217-2407
FCC Rules Take the “Auction” & “Incentives” out of the Supposed “Incentive Auction”
Auction will under-earn with FCC thwarting market forces by picking winners & losers
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2014-05-15 12:54
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 15, 2014
Contact: Scott Cleland
FCC Consideration of Title II Broadband Regulation is a Blueprint for Uncertainty
Google Apps for Education Dangers – An Open Letter to School Administrators, School Boards & Parent AssociationsSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2014-05-13 10:36
Dear School Administrators, School Boards, and Parent Associations,
If you assume Google is careful to protect your students when they use Google Apps for Education, you are sadly mistaken.
Too many assume that someone else must have done the due diligence necessary to ensure that Google Apps for Education adequately protects students’ privacy and safety, because they unfortunately did not. If they had, they would have been alarmed at Google’s shocking history of knowing disregard for the privacy and safety of their users including students.
This open letter will spotlight student privacy/safety concerns with Google that responsible parents and educators would want to know, given that Google Apps for Education, and Google’s other services, pervasively insinuate themselves into so many aspects of their students’ education and private lives.
It also will provide an important jumpstart to long-overdue, better due diligence of Google’s impact on student privacy and safety. Better late than never, the old adage says.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2014-05-09 18:07
Given the avalanche of misinformation and manufactured hysteria by net neutrality proponents over the FCC’s proposed rulemaking to make the FCC’s Open Internet Order comply with the Appeals Court Verizon v. FCC decision, AT&T’s FCC filing here (and below) is a welcome and much-needed total debunking of the call for Title II reclassification of broadband.
For anyone, analyst, reporter, etc. who cares to really understand how Title II common carrier law and regulation actually would play out in the real world, not in the nostalgic imaginations of people who have no real life experience in this matter, this filing eviscerates Title II proponents’ partial, over-simplified, inexperienced, and ill-informed thinking.
Beware proponents of Title II reclassification; if you read this AT&T rebuttal you will begin to comprehend the depth of vacuousness of arguments for reclassification of broadband and you will realize that manufactured-public-perception, is no match for facts, reality and real world experience.
The “Aristechracy” Demands Users Subsidize Their Net Neutrality Free Lunch – Part 45 FCC Open Internet Order SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2014-05-08 18:25
The Net Neutrality movement has lost its way. It’s now perversely focused on advancing Internet companies’ economic interests at the expense of Internet user interests.
The Net neutrality movement’s main priority used to be about ensuring that Internet users have the freedom to access the legal content of their choice.
Now they have become singularly-focused on securing permanent economic subsidies for edge companies by demanding the FCC set a zero-price for all downstream Internet traffic via reclassifying broadband as a Title II common carrier service.
Essentially, what their latest net neutrality scheme would mean is that Internet users would be forced to shoulder the entire cost burden of maintaining and upgrading America’s expensive Internet infrastructure without a fair-share contribution from the top Internet companies for the infrastructure costs they cause as a result of their dominant consumption of the nation’s daily downstream bandwidth.
Simply, net neutrality has transmogrified from preserving users’ Internet freedoms to forcing all Internet users to fully subsidize all Internet companies’ bandwidth usage bill no matter if they use a particular edge companies’ services or not.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2014-05-07 10:18
For those interested, please see a nine-minute highlight video of NetCompetition’s April 4th expert panel on making consumers, not technology, the organizing principle of any update of the obsolescing Communications Act.
The experts, Gene Kimmelman of Public Knowledge, Jeff Eisenach, of the American Enterprise Institute, Mark Cooper of the Consumer Federation of America, and Hal Singer of the Progressive Policy Institute, all discussed the merits of making consumers, not technology, the starting point and organizing principle of any update of the Communications Act.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2014-05-05 10:06
The FCC seems bent on overreaching their legal authority – yet again.
At the NCTA convention, Chairman Wheeler said: “I believe the FCC has the power – and I intend to exercise that power – to preempt state laws that ban competition from community broadband.” And in an FCC blog post, Chairman Wheeler also said this preemption of states on muni-broadband “is an issue that remains high on my agenda, and we will be announcing more on this topic shortly.”
FCC lawyers appear to think this is the time for more overreach of FCC authority because the legal outcome may be different than in the past.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2014-05-02 14:14
The net neutrality movement is positioning to influence the FCC, Congress, and candidates in the mid-term election cycle, to support their version of net neutrality -- i.e. FCC reclassification of broadband Internet service as a telephone common carrier service.
It is instructive to look back at what happened in the last mid-term election cycle -- in both the 2010 election, and in 2009-2010 Congress -- when the net neutrality movement last tried this.
The 2010 Election:
Google’s Anti-Competitive Rap Sheet Warrants Prosecution Not Leniency – An Open Letter to European CommissionersSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2014-04-30 21:51
Dear European Commission Official,
Would Interpol, or any EU prosecutor, ever recommend pursuing a lenient settlement with their overall #1 worst offender -- without extracting any punishment, restitution, admission of wrongdoing, or deterrent effect -- rather than prosecuting the worst offender to the full extent of the law?
Would any other prosecutor publicly threaten swift prosecution against a high-profile defendant repeatedly and then give the defendant three chances to settle over a period of several months when the defendant’s first two proposed remedies proved to be demonstrablydeceptive in market tests?
Of course not! That would be antithetical to the fair, honest, and effective administration of justice.
Then why, after its own investigation found Google to be dominant, and to have abused its dominance in four distinct ways, is DGComp strongly advocating that Google be protected from prosecution for clear violations of EU competition law?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2014-04-28 09:01
The Internet has long had multiple speeds. And it constantly gets faster speeds via technological and commercial innovation, competition, and investment.
The Internet also has long met people’s diverse needs, wants and means for speed, with different technologies, pricing, and content delivery methods, and it will continue to do so.
Net neutrality activists’ latest rhetoric that opposes the FCC’s court-required update of its Open Internet rules, by implying that there haven’t been “slow and fast lanes” on the Internet before, is obviously factually wrong and misleading, both for consumers receiving content and for entities sending content.
Many in the media have fallen for this mass “fast lane” deception without thinking or questioning it.
First, isn’t it odd that those who routinely complain that the Internet is not fast enough oppose genuine FCC efforts to make the Internet faster?
Moreover, isn’t it ironic that the net neutrality activists -- who have long criticized the FCC for the U.S. falling behind in the world in broadband speeds, and long advocated for municipalities to create giga-bit fast lanes for some communities -- vehemently oppose FCC efforts to create “faster lane” Internet for those entities that need it and are willing to pay for it?