You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2012-02-01 18:36
The latest twist in the spectrum auction debate is to try and shift the focus from the long accepted bipartisan purpose of auctioning airwaves for deficit and debt reduction
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2012-01-17 10:23
At CES, the FCC signaled that it opposed any effort by Congress to give the FCC policy direction or to establish any checks and balances on the FCC in authorizing incentive auctions of prime TV broadcast spectrum.
See my Forbes Tech Capitalist post "FCC Seeks Unbounded Spectrum Auction Authority" to see why the the FCC's lack of regulatory humility here is so stunning.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2012-01-04 11:21
Important free market communications legislation introduced in mid-December warrants flagging because it brings needed attention to a real and growing problem, how obsolete communications law stifles innovation, growth and consumer benefit.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2011-12-06 15:16
The out-of-the-box thinking that led to Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Bright House to sell $3.6b of AWS spectrum to competitor Verizon is a watershed competitive development which ultimately will flush out the real FCC.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2011-12-05 18:24
The unprecedented release of a FCC draft staff analysis opposing the the proposed AT&T/T-Mobile transaction could backfire legally, undermining its intent to backstop the DOJ's pending lawsuit against the merger.
See my Forbes Tech Capitalist post here on the "Top Ten Flaws in the FCC's AT&T/T-Mobile Competition Analysis."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2011-12-02 14:47
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 2, 2011
Contact: Scott Cleland
Verizon/SpectrumCo Deal Reflects Metamorphosis of Communications Competition
Broadband, Internet, & Cloud Computing Technologies Creating Omni-Modal Competition
WASHINGTON D.C. – Verizon Wireless’ purchase of 20 MHz of currently unused, near-nationwide AWS spectrum from Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Bright House Networks for $3.6b and reselling rights spotlights the extraordinary metamorphosis of communications competition being driven by broadband, Internet and cloud computing technologies.
The following quotes may be attributed to Scott Cleland, Chairman of NetCompetition.org:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2011-11-28 12:06
The only thing proponents of Net neutrality regulation and opponents of online piracy legislation appear to have in common is the boy-crying-wolf "censorship" rhetoric of FreePress' Save The Internet activists.
See my Forbes Tech Capitalist post here, "SOPA Opponents' Bogus Net Neutrality Comparisons."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2011-11-10 13:39
The Senate's 52-46 rejection of the Resolution of Disapproval of the FCC's net neutrality regulations (after the House voted differently 240-179 to disapprove last spring), is a classic pyrrhic victory for net neutrality proponents in two big ways.
First, the issue put the FCC on the political radar screen of every Member of Congress, and not in a good way.
For several hours the Senate debated and then officially voted on whether the Constitutionally-authorized Congress should be the entity to effectively establish new Internet law, or whether unelected FCC commissioners with no direct statutory authority from Congress should be able to effectively establish new Internet law and effectively claim boundless unchecked regulatory power whenever they see fit.
Supporters of the FCC were put in the very awkward position of politically having to defend a constitutional/legal position that:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2011-11-07 17:47
As the Senate prepares to vote on the fate of the FCC's net neutrality regulations this week, it's instructive to look more closely at the politics of regulating the Internet.
Read my Forbes Tech Capitalist post here.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2011-10-26 11:34
The New York Times editorial "How to Fix the Wireless Market," is embarrassingly uninformed and totally ignores massive obvious evidence of vibrant American wireless competition.
The NYT's conclusion, that more wireless regulation is needed because of "insufficient competition," results from cherry picking a few isolated facts that superficially support their case, while totally ignoring the overwhelming relevant evidence to the contrary.
The NYT completely ignores widely-available evidence of vibrant wireless competition and substitution: