You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2010-05-28 16:49
Often stepping back to gain perspective and to try and see the forest for the trees, can be highly instructive. However, if one steps back to see the big picture of how this FCC is attempting unilaterally to change U.S. Internet policy, the view is surreal.
Consider the avalanche of input and evidence that the FCC is completely ignoring as it proceeded yesterday with its announced plans to have a preliminary vote June 17th to enable the FCC to officially declare broadband a common carrier regulated service for the first time and to mandate its currently illegal proposed open Internet regulations.
1. Ignoring Congress: A majority of members of Congress now oppose the FCC plan in writing (285 of 535) per the National Journal.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2010-05-24 18:53
Seventy-four House Democrats and thirty-seven Senate Republicans wrote letters (here, here) to the FCC today that essentially told the FCC that their announced plans to deem broadband a common carrier service are over-reaching and out-of-bounds.
In turn, these letters appear to have prompted the Chairmen of the FCC's House and Senate authorizing committees and subcommittees to announce today that they will hold meetings with key stakeholders to discuss updating the Communications Act legislatively -- another strong message to the FCC that Congress makes communications policy, not unelected commissioners at the FCC.
The clear political message to the FCC here is that they have wrongly put the cart before the horse, and that they must seek a "solid bi-partisan political foundation" for U.S. broadband policy... before they can achieve their desired "solid legal foundation" for the FCC.
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, 2010-05-14 13:55
There are many valid reasons why industry is highly skeptical of the FCC's many rhetorical assurances that nothing bad will happen from the FCC's planned regulation of broadband for the first time as a Title II common carrier service.
First, in response to the Comcast court decision, the FCC is hastily gambling away the benefits of broadband's proven "solid business foundation," in its longshot bet to win back an unproven "solid legal foundation" for the FCC.
Second, the assertion that there has never been an instance of FCC "un-forbearance," is no assurance, because the FCC has never before reversed an entire sector's regulatory status before either.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2010-05-11 15:28
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2010-05-11 10:25
Kudos to Link Hoewing of Verizon Policy Blog for his excellent post systematically eviscerating New America's Foundation's fact-challenged attempt to argue that the U.S. is falling behind on broadband.
Facts are powerful and that's why net neutrality and Title II supporters like New America Foundation and their FreePress/Public Knowledge allies avoid facts like the plague.
The facts are overwhelmingly on the side that the U.S. is a world broadband leader.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2010-05-07 12:13
The FCC is vastly understating the systemic risk involved in the FCC's radical "third way" regulatory surgery to the Internet, the communications sector and the economy.
I. Why this "third way" is a disaster waiting to happen:
The best way to understand what is going on here is to think of the Internet as a brain and the FCC's "third way" proposal as brain surgery to fundamentally rewire how the Internet brain operates at its most basic level.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2010-05-05 22:26
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 5, 2010
Contact: Scott Cleland
“There’s no Title I ½”
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2010-05-03 12:46
"The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission has indicated he wants to keep broadband services deregulated" reports Cecilia Kang of the Washington Post.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2010-04-28 19:08
A common tactic of net neutrality proponents is to assert their desired outcome repeatedly in hopes that it becomes conventional wisdom. Now the Open Internet Coalition asserts that Title II for broadband would be a "solid legal foundation" for the FCC, while FreePress asserts broadband Title II would provide the FCC a "sounder legal basis" for its broadband agenda.
Surely the FCC understands that the courts ultimately will decide if any legal analysis defending Title II broadband is solid/sound, especially given:
In the Open Internet reply comments, there are many substantive legal analyses strongly indicating that any FCC decision deeming broadband to be Title II would not be on a solid/sound legal foundation. For just three of the most notable analyses see: