You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2011-06-06 16:00
As a regular reader of Steve Pearlstein's Washington Post's business column, I was dismayed at the consistent pro-regulation frame of Sunday's piece on the AT&T-T-Mobile acquisition: "The Revenge of the Baby Bells."
The hallmark of longstanding bipartisan competition policy has been that if market players have the freedom to succeed or fail at differentiating, innovating and investing to meet consumers' rapidly evolving needs, market forces can maximize consumer welfare much better than FCC regulators can.
Thus it is dismaying that Mr. Pearlstein crafted a false choice in his column: "...stick with the competitive, lightly-regulated model and... block a merger... or it could acknowledge... the "telephone" market is a natural oligopoly... and... requires much stronger government regulation."
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 Sun, 2011-05-15 19:48
Reset publish time If reports are true that the FCC doesn't plan to publish its Open Internet Order until August -- the critical trigger-date when the order can be challenged in court and when the Senate can start its process to vote on disapproval of the FCC order -- it sure looks like the FCC is gaming the net neutrality rule making process... again.
It appears the cynical common thread of the FCC's net neutrality rule making is to officially act only when Congress is maximally focused elsewhere and the media and public are on vacation or focused elsewhere.
late 2010 Process Gamed: Last November 15th, thirteen months after originally announcing the Open Internet rules, the FCC Chairman spoke to his fellow state regulators at NARUC on the FCC's agenda ahead, and made no mention of an imminent upcoming net neutrality order or that the issue was urgent. Just three days later, and conveniently just before the Thanksgiving recess/vacation, the FCC announced the FCC would vote on the order in December. The FCC then claimed it was so urgent to decide the issue before Christmas that everyone's Holiday plans had to be scrapped.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2011-03-30 10:18
Why is there a selective political fixation on AT&T-T-Mobile's ~43% combined market share when so many related markets are dramatically more concentrated, less competitive, or even monopolized?
When the FCC does the "data-driven analysis" that it claims to value, it will discover a blatant competition double standard where broadband critics gerrymander and torture broadband market share statistics to raise the specter of a broadband "opoly" -- to justify broadband regulation.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2011-03-14 16:35
It will be surprising if the Republican FCC Commissioners and a bipartisan majority of Congress do not oppose the FCC's unwarranted war on wireless competition policy.
The linchpin of the FCC's de-competition policy to restore the FCC to its pre-1996 monopoly regulation glory days, and to put the FCC in more control of the communications sector going forward, is to politically define away the existence of "effective competition," in order to justify FCC regulation of the mobile Internet.
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 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 Thu, 2010-05-20 14:31
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 20, 2010
Contact: Scott Cleland
Scott Cleland, Chairman NetCompetition.org, on FCC Wireless Report:
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.