You are here
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:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2011-10-21 16:32
For those seeking to better understand how communications competition has evolved, expanded, and accelerated to cloud communications competition, don't miss my new six-chart powerpoint presentation: "The Metamorphosis of Communications Competition," here.
My bottom line conclusion: The transformation of communications competition requires a transformation in communications law.
I presented this new easy-to-understand framework for understanding exploding communications competition at a NetCompetition event today on Capitol Hill, which also featured excellent presentations by Jeff Eisenach, Managing Director of Navigant Economics, and Ev Ehrlich, President of ESC Company.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2011-10-11 13:43
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2011-10-06 18:16
Since the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals was selected to hear appeals of the FCC's Open Internet Order -- it is now even more likely that the FCC's net neutrality regulations will be overturned in court as unlawful and/or unconstitutional.
The D.C. Circuit is the Appeals Court that traditionally hears cases involving independent regulatory agencies like the FCC, so the D.C. Circuit Judges are very familiar with both the limits of the FCC's statutory authority and the FCC's proven penchant for trying to overreach their statutory authority.
In a nutshell, the FCC's legal case stands on two very slippery assumptions.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2011-09-30 18:19
See my Forbes Tech Capitalist post here "Why Verizon Wins Appeal of FCC's Net Regs."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2011-09-28 19:00
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2011-09-16 12:01
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2011-09-05 13:59
The broader evidence of competitive price pressure in the U.S. mobile marketplace that the DOJ has ignored and excluded in its gerrymandered market definition -- is the DOJ case's Achilles Heel.
While layman may not understand that the DOJ's HHI concentration indices are not determinative, this experienced Judge certainly does.