Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2014-07-07 22:41
Please see my latest Daily Caller op-ed: “Top 10 Failures of FCC Title II Utility Regulation.”
The FCC has had a failure-prone, seventy-year track record implementing Title II telephone regulation.
It is important to remember what the FCC did in the past with Title II authority, because those who don’t learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.
It is Part 56 of my FCC Open Internet Series.
FCC Open Internet Order Series
Part 1: The Many Vulnerabilities of an Open Internet [9-24-09]
Interconnection is Different for Internet than Railroads or Electricity – Part 55 FCC Open Internet Order SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2014-06-26 15:38
Some things are way too important to let slip by uncontested.
The FCC has asserted a foundational regulatory premise that warrants rebuttal and disproving, given that the FCC is considering if Internet access, and Internet backbone peering, should be regulated like a utility under Title II telephone common carrier regulation.
In an important speech on Internet interconnection last month to the Progressive Policy Institute, the very able and experienced Ruth Milkman, Chairman Tom Wheeler’s Chief of Staff, asserted that “communications networks are no different” than railroad and electricity networks when it comes to interconnection. “… At bottom… the fact is that a network without connections and interconnections is one that simply doesn’t work. Disconnected networks do not serve the public interest.”
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2014-06-24 23:37
Google recently boughtDropcam for $555m, a company which makes inexpensive, easy-to-install, WiFi-video-streaming-cameras that connect to cloud-based networks for convenient monitoring, set-up and retrieval.
Please don’t miss this graphic -- here -- of how the Dropcam acquisition fits into Google’s plans for a new ubiquitous physical surveillance network that will complement and leverage its existing virtual surveillance network.
Google’s Privacy Rap Sheet, Dominance & Duplicity Not to Be Forgotten -- Part 41 Google Disrespect for Privacy SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2014-06-20 10:23
Please see Google’s new and updated Privacy Rap Sheet here.
Google’s uniquely awful privacy record makes it wish Google had its own “right to be forgotten.”
And Google clearly wants the EC to forget its digital and data dominance, and its many abuses of dominance of Europe’s digital and data economy, because Google knows a core enabler of its market dominance is Google’s willingness to disregard privacy and data protection laws for anti-competitive first-mover advantage.
Google knows data protection rules, and requirements of consumer consent are impediments to gaining dominance -- so it simply ignores them while publicly proclaiming to respect them. Google has learned that its willingness to do what other competitors will not is an unbeatable competition advantage in the marketplace.
Google’s Privacy Rap Sheet
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2014-06-17 17:50
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Sun, 2014-06-15 10:19
Thanks and Kudos to Mike Wendy of Media Freedom for this <3 minute commentary (video here) about how naïve Silicon Valley is in pushing for broadband regulation that could easily boomerang and apply to core parts of Silicon Valley’s distribution and cloud businesses.
They are living proof of the old adage: be careful of what you ask for, you may just get it.
They also could find themselves getting acquainted with a new adage: live by three FCC votes, die by three FCC votes.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2014-06-13 09:47
NetCompetition submitted this proposed communications competition framework in response to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton’s and Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden’s call for input on defining competition and competition principles for a potential Communications Act Update next Congress.
Modernizing the Communications Act – Modern is Consumer-Driven Competition
Obsolete presumption of telephone and cable monopolies: The core policy problem with monopoly-premised communications law is that it is hostile to the reality of a vibrantly competitive communications marketplace.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2014-06-11 12:51
Who does Google think they are fooling?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2014-06-05 15:22
If Netflix’ position on net neutrality was justified on the merits, why does Netflix need to say so many deceptive things that are demonstrably untrue, in order to justify its case for its version of net neutrality?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2014-06-03 17:39
Unregulated Google is increasingly pushing for maximal FCC net neutrality and price regulation of its direct broadband competitors, potentially via FCC reclassification of broadband as a Title II telephone utility service.