About Scott Cleland
![]() |
|
You are hereRegulationFCC Respect for Process: What's wrong with this picture?Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2010-07-08 18:40For an FCC that so assiduously respected the integrity of process to produce a consensus National Broadband Plan just a few short months ago, how could this same FCC come to abuse the integrity of process in its pursuit of Title II net neutrality authority, just a few months later?
How could the same FCC go from the predictable, open, consensus-driven process of developing the National Broadband Plan to the most unpredictable, closed, and non-consensus approach of the Title II net neutrality NOI? How can an FCC, which supposedly heard loud and clear from Congress about the importance of the integrity of process in confirmation hearings held just last year, completely ignore letters to the FCC from a majority of Congress imploring the FCC to respect the Constitutional process that empowers the Congress, not the FCC, with the authority to set communications policy for the Nation? Does not all integrity of process come entirely from respecting the Constitutional processes of separation of powers, due process, rule of law, equal protection, etc.? How can the FCC maintain that they respect the integrity of process with the small "p" of the Adminstrative Procedures Act, when they disrespect the integrity of process with the large "P" of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights? What's wrong with this picture?
Randy May has must read post on media socialismSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2010-06-23 13:17For anyone wanting to better understand the big picture threat to our Nation's communications and media infrastructure/business models, please don't miss Randy May's outstanding post: "Not Mao Zedong or a communist... but a Socialist." Building on the great foundation of work laid down by Adam Theirer of the Progress and Freedom Foundation in this area, Randy adds another laser spotlight on how there are powerful ideological forces championed by FreePress' leader Robert McChesney that seek ultimate government control of both the media and the communications infrastructure. The disturbing common thread here that deserves much more attention from freedom-loving people everywhere, is the deeply (and scarily successful) anti-free-enterprise, anti-property, anti-individual-freedom efforts by FreePress in promoting a de facto government takeover of both the media and broadband communications infrastructure.
The FCC's "Blight Touch" & "Muddle Ground"Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2010-06-22 09:46Clearly proponents of net neutrality and public-utility regulation of broadband, have learned how to manipulate language and metaphors to mask and move their agenda; what they haven't learned is that the language and metaphors used to promote policy changes must be true in order to make legitimate, successful, and lasting public policy.
NetCompetition Statement on FCC's Broadband Legal Framework NOISubmitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2010-06-17 14:06FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June, 17 2010 Contact: Scott Cleland 703-217-2407
“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”
FCC & Google's Extreme Internet Makeover -- A PreviewSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2010-06-14 14:31At its Thursday meeting, expect the FCC to adopt Google's PR script to try and better sell the FCC's upcoming "Extreme Makeover" of Internet regulation.
Predictably, the FCC's Google-oriented-BICS-scheme has three fatal flaws -- making it a disaster waiting to happen. Americans want online privacy -- per new Zogby pollSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2010-06-08 17:28American consumers clearly want online privacy, per a national poll conducted over the weekend by Zogby International, that was commissioned by Precursor LLC.
More specifically, this Zogby poll asked eight timely questions that are highly pertinent to: FCC retransmission update can protect consumersSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2010-06-02 22:18The FCC has a ready-made opportunity to protect consumers by approving the simple rule updates recommended in the pending Retransmission Petition.
The petition is laser-focused on updates to the FCC's rules to protect consumers from being used as pawns or hostages in commercial disputes not of their making or interest.
It is highly instructive that opponents of the retransmission petition focus most all their argumentation on protecting the status quo, that unnecessarily puts consumers directly in harms way, and that does not directly address why consumers should not be protected as recommended in the petition. FCC Exceptionalism and Supremacy?Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2010-05-28 16:49Often 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. NetCompetition.org Press Release on FCC wireless report which advances FCC de-competition policySubmitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2010-05-20 14:31FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 20, 2010 Contact: Scott Cleland 703-217-2407
Scott Cleland, Chairman NetCompetition.org, on FCC Wireless Report:
FCC's Dysfunctional Retransmission Rules Harm ConsumersSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2010-05-17 12:34The FCC's retransmission rules now perversely cause consumers to suffer unnecessary collateral damage in retransmission negotiations -- the exact opposite outcome the FCC wants -- in large part because the FCC's retransmission rules have not kept pace with dramatic competitive and technology changes over the last two decades.
To better understand how rules that possibly made sense in 1992, could produce predictably perverse and dysfunctional consumer outcomes today, think of the retransmission rules, like a regulatory "gun" that was originally and permanently pointed directly at a 1992 cable monopoly and no one else. Pages |