Open Internet

If proponents of network neutrality, an Internet non-discrimination principle, truly care about preventing discrimination on the Internet, why do they turn a blind eye to the worst offender of gatekeeper discrimination on the Internet – Alphabet-Google?

Recently, the Internet Association, which Google co-founded and funds, criticized the Federal Communications Commission for its proposal on network neutrality and utility regulation of Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Internet Association President Michael Beckerman stated: “ISPs should not be able to use their position as gatekeepers to prioritize their own content over others.”

Apparently, the net neutrality movement has a hypocritical double standard on gatekeeper discrimination. It has one for their chosen opponents – ISPs, and another for their allies and patrons like Google.

They maximally regulate competitive ISPs as monopolies engaged in anti-competitive discrimination, when they are not on both counts. They stay silent and do nothing when a real monopoly anti-competitively discriminates.

How can net neutrality proponents be so incensed about an imagined ISP net neutrality problem and so indifferent to a real anti-competitive and discriminatory gatekeeper problem on the Internet – Google?

They must ignore the facts.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, May 18, 2017, Contact:  Scott Cleland 703-217-2407

What’s Wrong with This Picture? Pressure Groups and their Netopolies-Funders: Google, Facebook and Amazon, Hypocritically Demand Utility Regulation of Competitive Broadband ISPs to Prevent Commercial Discrimination or Blocking When the Netopolies are the Actual De Facto Utilities that Discriminate and Block as a Key Part their Business Models  

WASHINGTON D.C. – The following may be attributed to Scott Cleland, Chairman of NetCompetition:  

“Title II broadband regulation proponents sacrifice their credibility when they claim competitive companies are monopolies that require the strongest possible utility regulation, while simultaneously claiming Internet monopolies like Google, Facebook and Amazon, are competitive companies that should have no regulation at all.”

Please don’t miss my latest The Hill Op-ed: “HBO’s John Oliver needs a 'net neutrality' reality check.”

Please don’t miss my latest The Hill Op-ed: “Internet giants, not broadband providers, are the top threat to consumers”.

Net neutrality proponents who summarily dismiss any potential for Congress to resolve net neutrality with a legislative compromise, might want to rethink that heroic assumption after closely reading the Pai-FCC’s Title II NPRM.

Apparently, Chairman Pai has figured out a way that could overturn the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet order, and in addition, practically neuter the going-forward precedential value of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ USTelecom v. FCC decision that upheld the legality of the 2015 FCC order.

Importantly, it is the continuation of the legal validation and legitimacy of the USTelecom v. FCC decision that gives net neutrality proponents their long-term hope that they could restore a Title II net neutrality regime in the U.S. with just a simple FCC majority vote in 2021 or 2025, just like they did in 2015.

Please don’t miss my latest The Hill op-ed: “Six definitions that are preventing consensus on net neutrality.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, April 20, 2017, Contact:  Scott Cleland 703-217-2407

Pai FCC is wisely spurring private broadband infrastructure investment and facilities-based competition, which is what makes America’s Internet infrastructure unique in the world, and which is the opposite of the Wheeler FCC’s broadband infrastructure policy of Title II public utility regulation and promotion of taxpayer-funded municipal broadband networks

WASHINGTON D.C. – The following may be attributed to Scott Cleland, Chairman of NetCompetition:

“In a series of consistent digital infrastructure decisions today by the Pai FCC, the important policy takeaway is a Pai-FCC laser focus on encouraging private sector infrastructure investment and facilities-based competition, a complete reversal of the Wheeler-FCC’s opposite laser focus of discouraging private broadband infrastructure investment via aggressive promotion of taxpayer-funded, municipal broadband infrastructure investment, and maximal Title II public utility regulation of competitive broadband facility providers.”

“These Pai-FCC infrastructure decisions today represent a clear return to the bipartisan 1996 Telecom Act purpose of “promoting competition and reducing regulation,” and the consistent bipartisan broadband policies of the 1997-2013 FCC’s of Senate-confirmed FCC Chairmen Kennard, Powell, Martin, and Genachowski, that all promoted facilities-based broadband competition and investment, and consistently rejected Title II utility regulation of broadband Internet access.”

At best the notions of net neutrality and consumer privacy are somewhat in tension.

At worst, they are in opposition, and harm consumer privacy as happened when the Wheeler-FCC subordinated the goal of what’s best for consumer privacy to the conflicting and overriding goal of what was best for imposing maximal, Title II net neutrality.

Net neutrality and consumer privacy are in tension because they are very different concepts, priorities, and approaches for the handling of information online.

However, the original tension between the FCC’s first concept of net neutrality and consumer privacy was very limited because the Martin-FCC’s 2005 Internet Policy Statement on net neutrality was an extension of the Powell-FCC’s “Internet Freedoms” concept of net neutrality, and both approaches were consumer-first, i.e. very clearly centered around what consumers could expect from the Internet.

What thrust them into the more opposing concepts that they are today?

It was when net neutrality flipped from being primarily a consumer-centric principle to an edge-provider centric principle defined by Google, Amazon, Facebook and Netflix; and from the enforcement of a general broadband nondiscrimination principle, to the preemptive imposition of “the strongest possible,” specific, utility rate regulation framework – i.e. Title II of the 1934 Communications Act -- on a competitive industry that had done nothing wrong to warrant it.

Please see my latest The Hill op-ed: “Congress was right to save consumers from privacy rules imposed under net neutrality.”

Consumer privacy has been the biggest loser from net neutrality proponents’ politicization of privacy.

Please don’t miss my latest The Hill op-ed: “Pai’s FCC is rebooting broadband facilities competition and 5G investment.”

It uncovers what is important underneath the focus on Title II net neutrality.