You are here

Sprint

De-competition De-competition De-competition – My Daily Caller Op-ed

 

Please read my Daily Caller op-ed: “De-competition De-competition De-competition” here.

  • De-competition is regulation that undermines competition in order to justify more regulation.

As one can see from the “de-competition” series below, this isn’t the first time the FCC has turned to de-competition policy.

***

FCC De-Competition Series

Part 1:Harms of a Potential New FCC De-Competition Policy – Reply Comments to FCC Open Internet NPRM [4-5-10]

NetCompetition Comments to FCC Opposing Title II Utility Regulation of Broadband

 

FCC Open Internet Order Remand Request for Comments (GN Docket No. 14-28) Submitted by: Scott Cleland, Chairman of NetCompetition, September 9, 2014

The case against the FCC regulating broadband as a telephone utility is overwhelming. Please see eight strong arguments against FCC Title II reclassification of broadband below.

The Summary Case against FCC Title II Reclassification of Broadband

 

  1. The FCC rejected Title II reclassification in 2010 for many good reasons.

  2. Broadband info services classification is consistent with law, national policy, and FCC precedent.

The FCC’s Redefinition of Broadband Competition

 

What is the FCC’s definition of “competition?” That is the defining question and take-away from FCC Chairman Wheeler’s latest broadband speech, “The Facts and Future of Broadband Competition.”  

Tellingly the Chairman said: “Since my first day as Chairman of the FCC my mantra has been consistent and concise: Competition, Competition, Competition.” Well then, it seems especially important to understand exactly what the FCC Chairman means when he says the FCC is singularly focused on “Competition.”  

NetCompetition’s FCC Comments – Don’t Preempt State Muni Broadband Laws

There are two core reasons the FCC should not try to preempt State muni-broadband laws.

  1. The Supreme Court has already indicated it would be unconstitutional.  
  2. It would be anti-competitive, the opposite of the FCC’s statutory purpose and legal mandate.

 

I.  Why FCC Preemption of States Rights would be Unconstitutional

First, the Supreme Court already has decided this issue effectively in favor of state rights. In Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League (2004) the Supreme Court rejected federal preemption of state prohibitions on telecom services. It specifically rejected the use of the FCC’s Title II section 253(a) authority to preempt state prohibitions of localities offering telecom services on constitutional federalism grounds.

Debunking Consumerist Bogus Claim Mobile Data Does Not Compete with Cable

 

Pro-regulation interests often resort to highly misleading arguments to advance their cause. Fortunately that kind of deception ultimately exposes the weakness of their underlying argument and public policy position.

To promote Netflix’ “strong” version of net neutrality regulation and to oppose the Comcast-TWC acquisition, Consumerist just framed a very deceptive whopper competition argument: “Comcast says mobile data is competitive, but it costs $2k to stream Breaking Bad over LTE.”

Internet Peering Doesn’t Need Fixing – NetComp CommActUpdate Submission

 

The old adage is true here; “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.”

The Internet peering marketplace works exceptionally well and it has for its entire twenty year history. The unparalleled success, growth, and resiliency of the unregulated model for the Internet backbone peering marketplace has been nothing short of phenomenal in enabling and ensuring everyone reasonable access to the Internet.

Inter-networked computer networks are effectively the opposite of railroad, electricity, and telephone networks; trying to impose telephone interconnection rules on IP inter-networking is akin to forcing a square peg into a round hole. It predictably breaks both the peg and the hole.

Please see NetCompetition’s House CommActUpdate submission on interconnection -- here. (3 pages)

NetCompetition Statement & Comments on FCC Open Internet Order Remand

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                           

July 11, 2014

Contact:  Scott Cleland 703-217-2407

 

 

Broadband Reclassification is a Problem Pretending to be a Solution; & Un-supported by the Facts, Unjustified on the Merits, & Unwise Given FCC’s Record of Title II Failures

Networks Aren’t Free; Businesses Pay for Electricity, Water, Gas, Transport & Delivery

Top Ten Failures of FCC Title II Utility Regulation – Part 56 FCC Open Internet Order Series

Please see my latest Daily Caller op-ed: “Top 10 Failures of FCC Title II Utility Regulation.”

The FCC has had a failure-prone, seventy-year track record implementing Title II telephone regulation.

It is important to remember what the FCC did in the past with Title II authority, because those who don’t learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.  

It is Part 56 of my FCC Open Internet Series.

***

FCC Open Internet Order Series

Part 1: The Many Vulnerabilities of an Open Internet [9-24-09]

Interconnection is Different for Internet than Railroads or Electricity – Part 55 FCC Open Internet Order Series

 

Some things are way too important to let slip by uncontested.

The FCC has asserted a foundational regulatory premise that warrants rebuttal and disproving, given that the FCC is considering if Internet access, and Internet backbone peering, should be regulated like a utility under Title II telephone common carrier regulation.

In an important speech on Internet interconnection last month to the Progressive Policy Institute, the very able and experienced Ruth Milkman, Chairman Tom Wheeler’s Chief of Staff, asserted that “communications networks are no different” than railroad and electricity networks when it comes to interconnection. “… At bottom… the fact is that a network without connections and interconnections is one that simply doesn’t work. Disconnected networks do not serve the public interest.”

Pages

Q&A One Pager Debunking Net Neutrality Myths