You are here
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 Wed, 2011-08-03 12:40
FreePress with its "all complaints all the time" approach to advocacy has been caught once again "crying wolf" when there was no real problem or threat.
FreePress also continues to cry wolf about its spurious tethering" complaint against Verizon because users are prevented from unauthorized tethering of additional devices trying to bypass users' terms of service agreement.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2011-07-26 17:44
Netflix continues to throw stones at the common economic practice of usage-based pricing, to which broadband carriers are naturally migrating, all while Netflix stands inside a glass house filled with mis-managed usage pricing practices.
Netflix as Stone Thrower:
In a concerted campaign for net neutrality regulation that would ban broadband usage caps or pricing, Netflix has generated a:
Netflix as Glass House:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2011-05-26 09:51
The FCC's Open Internet Order is even more likely to be overturned in court than before because the FCC's extraordinary delay in publishing its December net neutrality regulations has oddly moved the FCC's April Data Roaming Order to the front of the line of cases challenging the FCC's overall legal authority to regulate broadband.
Consequently both cases are now more likely to be heard in the FCC-unfriendly D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2011-01-20 17:54
Verizon is highly likely to win its appeal of the FCC's December Open Internet order, because the FCC's order is likely to deeply and broadly offend the legal sensibilities of the Appeals Court, just like the FCC offended the DC Appeals Court's sensibilities when it punished Comcast for violating a regulation that did not exist.
To understand the most likely outcome here, it is critical to cut through the FCC's claims, assertions, and arguments, and focus on the big picture context of what the FCC is actually doing in this Open Internet Order, i.e. what is the effect of the FCC's decision and process on the rule of law. That is what matters most to the Court.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Sun, 2010-12-19 23:47
In requesting the FCC and DOJ condition the Comcast-NBCU merger with Title II telephone regulation of Comcast's Internet backbone, Level 3 seeks to achieve through the back door of the FCC what they could not achieve through the front door.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2010-12-08 14:31
The extent to which Level 3's business is underwater is the untold story behind Level 3's regulatory "hail Mary" claim that its Internet peering dispute with Comcast is somehow a net neutrality violation.
Why is Level 3 seeking a de facto Internet regulation bailout from the FCC?
First, Level 3 is a financially-sinking business with no legitimate growth prospects.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2010-11-15 17:23
Comcast's EVP David Cohen spoke at Brookings today on "Who should Govern the Internet."
My big takeaway from the event, was that the FCC should declare victory -- that we have a free and open Internet -- and then get back to the real pressing work facing the FCC -- the National Broadband Plan.
There are no existing net neutrality problems, and no technical issues that the industry engineering bodies, IETF and BITAG have not been able to resolve.
There is simply no need for the FCC to fix an Internet that is already operating as the FCC and most everyone expects it to operate.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2010-09-28 10:28
House Democrats have proposed a resolution to Net Neutrality that strongly signals to the FCC majority to not pursue its considered Title II reclassification of broadband as a 1934 regulated telephone service. The House Democrats' draft is here. The implications of this House draft are broad, important and constructive.
First, this House Democrat draft signals to the FCC Democrat majority loud and clear that House Democrats do not support the radical FreePress-driven proposal to regulate broadband Internet networks as 1934 common carrier telephone networks.
Second, it proves that the FreePress-driven proposal to takeover the Internet and regulate it as a public utility is extreme, way out of the political mainstream, and a non-starter.
Third, this legislation proposes a sensible resolution and workable alternative to this destructive polarizing issue that is serving no one who seeks an open Internet that works, grows and innovates without anti-competitive concerns, but only the revolutionary interests of FreePress and its allies that claim they want net neutrality, but really seek a utopian "information commons revolution."