You are here
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."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2010-06-17 14:06
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June, 17 2010
Contact: Scott Cleland
“FCC Regulating the Internet like a Phone Company Would Enthrone “Ma Google”
“FCC’s Broadband De-competition Policy Would Accelerate Google-opolization of the Net”
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2010-04-16 15:04
The FCC would be making a long-shot bet-the-farm gamble, if it decided to mandate the broadband public option i.e. deeming broadband to be a common-carrier-regulated service and regulating the Internet essentially for the first time.
I. Lose in Court:
It is a given that the FCC would be sued; and it is very likely that the Appeals Court and/or the Supreme Court would overturn any FCC unilateral assertion of authority to deem broadband a common carrier service.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2010-04-09 11:38
Proponents of the FCC asserting new "deeming authority," to "deem" broadband to be a regulated phone service and thus subject to the FCC's existing Title II telephone authority, have not even begun to answer the most fundamental questions of what such a foundational change would mean.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2010-04-06 14:48
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 6, 2010
Contact: Scott Cleland 703-217-2407
NetCompetition Comments on Impact of D.C. Circuit Vacating FCC Comcast Order
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2010-02-01 09:56
At core the FCC's contemplation of reclassifying, or effectively treating, unregulated broadband info services as regulated telecom services, would be tantamount to the FCC declaring "eminent domain" over private broadband providers, i.e. justifying a government takings of private property for public uses, but doing so "without just compensation" or any statutory authority.
A gaping missing element in all the FCC's discussions of all the new "public uses" it envisions for broadband in its pending National Broadband Plan and its proposed preemptive Open Internet regulations is any consideration at all of the potential hundreds of billions of dollars of un-budgeted liability to the U.S. Treasury that could result from the takings of private network property without just compensation -- at a time of skyrocketing trillion dollar Federal budget deficits and rapidly mounting public debt.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2010-01-06 23:39
News reports that the DOJ, and not the FTC, will conduct the antitrust review of the Comcast-NBCU deal is a very good development for the companies.
First, DOJ's filing to the FCC on the National Broadband Plan just this week showed that the DOJ clearly understands that the cable industry is competitive and that DBS competition has improved innovation, content choice, and customer service in the market, and that telecom competitive entry has provided pricing pressure to the cable market as well. (See pages 15 & 16 of the DOJ filing.)
Second, that same DOJ filing shows that DOJ rejects the radical thinking of FreePress that competition must be commodity-like to be competition and that pricing should be based on incremental costs. If the DOJ does not agree with FreePress' approach to analyzing competition in the National Broadband Plan they are unlikely to agree with FreePress' approach to analyzing competition in this Comcast-NBCU merger review. Simply, DOJ does not analyze competition and antitrust like FreePress does. DOJ is professional and driven by the facts and the law -- not politics.
Third, the DOJ merger review process, because it is overseen by a single antitrust enforcer/prosecutor and not a commission with additional consumer protection responsibilities, is a much harder process for FreePress to politically influence/manipulate than the FTC.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2010-01-04 18:16
FreePress, which philosophically opposes competition policy, effectively is mocking antitrust law and authorities by cynically feigning to care about antitrust and competition in calling for an antitrust investigation of "TV Everywhere" efforts to enable authenticated paying video customers the additional convenience of accessing their paid-for content on any device at no extra cost.
In their own words, FreePress is anti-competition, anti-property, and anti-business.