You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2014-03-20 09:21
A shocking new legal fact set recently came together in public as a result of a Gmail wiretapping case, Fread v. Google. Revelations of Google’s secret widespread wiretapping of hundreds of millions of people over the last three years, using a NSA-PRISM-like device called “Content One Box” could have Snowden-esque repercussions.
The New Legal Fact Set:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2014-03-19 12:24
Thinking and Starting Anew:
Modernizing Communications Law for American Consumers
Join NetCompetition and an esteemed panel to discuss how Congress can best make consumers, not technology, the organizing principle of a 21st century Communications Act framework that serves and protects consumers while fostering dynamic innovation, competition, and growth in an evolving marketplace:
Where: 121 Cannon House Office Building, Washington DC 20515
When: Friday, April 4, 2014
Time: 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM
Presenter and Moderator: Scott Cleland, NetCompetition
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2014-03-10 14:06
With due credit to "Ripley's Believe it or Not!®," so much odd and bizarre is happening in Washington in the "name" of "U.S. wireless competition criticism” that the topic calls for its own collection of: "Believe it or Not!®" oddities.
Softbank’s CEO Masayoshi Son, who bought Sprint for $21b in 2013 with public plans “to become the #1 company in the world,” tells U.S. regulators just eight months after he bought Sprint, that Softbank-Sprint cannot compete with either of America’s #1 and #2 wireless providers, Verizon and AT&T, unless Softbank can buy America’s #4 wireless provider -- T-Mobile!
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2014-01-31 14:53
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 31, 2014
Contact: Scott Cleland 703-217-2407
WASHINGTON D.C. – The following quotes addressing Chairmen Upton & Walden’s requests for input on modernizing the Communications Act may be attributed to Scott Cleland, Chairman of NetCompetition:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2014-01-24 15:42
Netflix’ defensive reaction to the Appeals Court Verizon v. FCC decision in its recent shareholder letter speaks volumes about Netflix’s unique and extraordinary net neutrality regulatory arbitrage. It also begs much more scrutiny.
This analysis exposes: how deceptive Netflix has been to its investors about its regulatory risk; how critical Netflix’ misrepresentation of net neutrality to investors has been to its entire economic model; and how relatively wasteful and irresponsible Netflix is in its utilization of the Internet’s bandwidth.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2014-01-22 09:47
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2014-01-14 12:27
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 14, 2014
Contact: Scott Cleland 703-217-2407
Court Upholds FCC’s “General Authority to Regulate” Broadband in Verizon v. FCC, But Denies FCC Authority to Impose Common-Carrier-like Regulation of Broadband. This win-win, Could Settle into a de Facto Net Neutrality Peace, if Parties Don’t Appeal
WASHINGTON D.C. – The following quotes addressing the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Verizon v. FCC decision may be attributed to Scott Cleland, Chairman of NetCompetition:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2014-01-08 11:24
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2013-12-06 09:06
The op-ed provides a foundational answer to both:
This is Part 21 of my Obsolete Communications Law Series.
FYI: See additional background below: two key PowerPoint presentations & my Obsolete Communications Law Series.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2013-12-02 17:38
Some wireless competitors and the DOJ/OSTP are urging the FCC to effectively change their spectrum aggregation rules to treat low-band spectrum-technology <1 GHz competitively different than high-band spectrum-technology >1 GHz.
If the FCC complies, it effectively would subdivide the current spectrum marketplace into two technology markets: <1GHz and >1GHz, for the first time in twenty years of spectrum auction history. It also would set the precedent for the FCC to arbitrarily subdivide the spectrum market further in future auctions based on the FCC’s latest technology-mix prognostications at that time.
Big picture, it would represent a regression back towards the 1980s pre-auction period when the FCC, not competitive market auctions, decided which company got what spectrum, and how certain spectrum was allocated.