You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2014-02-19 16:51
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2014-02-19 10:27
Anyone interested in broadband policy should not miss the excellent new research of Roslyn Layton, an AEI Internet economist, who has studied European broadband progress as compared to America’s.
Let me flag two big research takeaways that should not be missed.
These findings affirm the wisdom of America’s market-led broadband policy that encourages facilities-based broadband competition over the EU’s lagging, common carrier, monopoly-unbundling, approach to broadband.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2014-02-13 16:27
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 13, 2014
Contact: Scott Cleland 703-217-2407
The Comcast-Time Warner Cable Merger is Pro-competitive,
The Communications Marketplace Has Never Been More Competitive,
And American Consumers Have Never Had More Communications Choices
Mobile & Cloud Competition & Innovation are Dynamically Changing Communications
WASHINGTON D.C. – The following quotes on the announcement of the Comcast-Time-Warner Cable merger may be attributed to Scott Cleland, Chairman of NetCompetition:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2014-02-12 12:23
For those interested in municipal broadband overbuilds and their effect on competition, please read my latest Daily Caller op-ed: “Government Broadband Overbuilds Are Anticompetitive.”
Big GoverNet research series:
Part 1: Cities learning there is no wireless “free lunch” [9-20-07]
Part 2: Why the Australian “Fiber Mae” Broadband Model Doesn’t Work for the U.S. [5-13-09]
Part 3: Why Broadband is not a Public Utility [8-21-09]
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2014-02-10 21:28
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:
Nattering Net Neutrality Nonsense over AT&T’s Sponsored Data Offering – Part 23 Broadband Pricing Freedom SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2014-01-06 19:21
Net neutrality activists’ criticism of AT&T’s new freebie for consumers called Sponsored Data is nonsensical.
AT&T’s pricing innovation creates a new freebie for consumers and a new freedom for web providers of Internet content, apps and devices that is fully in keeping with any reasonable notion of a free and open Internet.
AT&T’s Sponsored Data offering is no different from other business freebies offered to consumers to market and competitively differentiate their businesses like: Amazon’s free shipping and free Kindle wireless service; Apple’s free messaging and video conferencing; Google’s free Search, Fiber, Maps, Mobile Operating System, and video conferencing offerings; or Yahoo’s free email. A full list of all free and open Internet consumer freebies would be endless.
AT&T’s Sponsored Data innovation is no different from sponsored ads, website sponsors, content sponsors or any other kind of Internet sponsor.
It is nonsensical for net neutrality activists to not be open to yet another free web service. On what reasonable basis is a consumer freebie from AT&T different than a consumer freebie offered by any other competitor in the Internet ecosystem?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2013-12-10 17:54
FCC staff just muffed an easy opportunity to advance the IP transition on the FCC’s timetable in the National Broadband Plan.
Apparently FCC staff missed the big picture here.
1. On November 25th, AT&T proposed a baby step forward in the IP Transition.
AT&T did not propose any change in special access rates. AT&T simply proposed that its special access contract term-lengths, synch up with the FCC’s own goals for when the IP transition should be complete.
Instead of promoting investment certainty -- by respecting its own IP transition timetable that the private sector has come to rely on for infrastructure investment planning -- FCC staff announced an unnecessary five-month investigative delay.
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.