You are here

Congress

Google’s Widespread Wiretapping Could Have Snowden-esque Repercussions

Summary

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:

NetCompetition Event: Modernizing Communications Law for American Consumers

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

Panelists:

U.S. Wireless Competition Criticism “Believe it or not!”

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! 

NetCompetition Release on Comm Act Update House Submission

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:

Exposing Netflix’ Extraordinary Net Neutrality Arbitrage

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.

Title II Reclassification Would Violate the President’s Executive Order on “Improving Regulation”

Yet another major obstacle to net neutrality activists’ call for the FCC to reclassify broadband as a common-carrier service is the President’s 2011 Executive Order on “Improving Regulation.”

By way of background, just weeks after the FCC passed its Open Internet Order (3-2) the President issued Executive Order 13563Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.”

NetCompetition Statement on Verizon v. FCC Court Decision

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:

3 min video: Why We Need a Modern Communications Law

To learn why America needs to modernize its obsolete communications laws, please take three minutes to view this video where I explain why -- here.  

Many thanks to Dan Berninger, Founder of the Voice Communications Exchange, for producing this video "VCXC Examines the Future of Communications."  

Why Chairmen Upton/Walden Plan a Communications Act Update – Daily Caller Op-ed

Please don’t miss my latest Daily Caller op-ed “Why Chairmen Upton/Walden Plan a Communications Act Update” – here.

The op-ed provides a foundational answer to both:

  • Chairman Upton/Walden’s organizing question: “…is this working for today’s communications marketplace?” and
  • Representative Dingell’s core question: What is the need for change?

This is Part 21 of my Obsolete Communications Law Series.

***

FYI: See additional background below: two key PowerPoint presentations & my Obsolete Communications Law Series.

FCC Shouldn’t Pick Wireless Technologies

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.

Pages

Q&A One Pager Debunking Net Neutrality Myths