About Scott Cleland
![]() |
|
You are hereRegulation"Open" Internet = benefit without cost for "Piggy-backer" GoogleSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2009-11-02 13:21As the lead bankroller of the "open Internet" slogan that the FCC now proposes to adopt as new U.S. policy without Congressional authorization, Google knows what an "open Internet" is supposed to mean: Google gets the benefits of the Internet without its costs. Google Voice's Plea for Special FCC TreatmentSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2009-10-29 09:51Google responded to the FCC's questions that effectively address whether or not Google Voice should be subject to the FCC's proposed net neutrality regulations. In a nutshell, Google basically asserted that it is acceptable for a benevolent provider of free services like Google Claus to discriminate and block calls as an information service voice provider, but it is unaccceptable for profit-seeking broadband voice and information service providers to discriminate or block calls. "How did the commission come to acquire this power?"Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2009-10-28 14:24"How did the commission come to acquire this power?" was the core question that Ronald H. Coase asked in a seminal paper he wrote about the FCC in 1959.
How did the FCC acquire the power to regulate the "open Internet? The FCC did not "acquire this power," the FCC is proposing to simply assume and assert this power by tech elite acclamation. The term "net neutrality" slogan was first coined by Columbia Professor Tim Wu in 2002, and Google rebranded it as the "open Internet" in 2007 when Google bankrolled the creation of the Open Internet Coalition. Net neutrality was further sloganized as "the First Amendment of the Internet," as tech elites have self-deemed that an "open Internet" is an American's "right." Obviously the FCC has not acquired "the power" to mandate net neutrality and an Open Internet. Read Richard Epstein's Great Op-ed on Net NeutralitySubmitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2009-10-27 18:51I admire clarity of thought, and Richard Epstein's Op-ed in the Financial Times, "Net Neutrality at the Crossroads," represents some of the clearest thinking I have found on net neutrality. Please read it. Mr. Epstein does a great job of exposing the folly beneath the vacuous sloganeering of net neutrality proponents. Takeaways from FCC's Proposed Open Internet RegsSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2009-10-22 23:06The FCC's proposed Open Internet regulations (NPRM) are sweeping and audacious. First, the FCC proposed rules are audaciously attempting to implement the introduced-but-never-passed Markey bill (HR 3458) entitled: the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009." The purpose, premises, language, and core positions are nearly identical for anyone willing to forensically compare the NPRM and HR 3458. More un-economics nonsense from FreePress: Regulation does not discourage private investmentSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2009-10-22 09:59Does anyone else see the irony of a staunchly anti-business and anti-property activist organization like FreePress -- which openly advocates for an information commons and a broadband public utility model -- attempting to be credible doing private investment analysis for the FCC?
If FreePress does not believe in free enterprise or private property, and does not understand concepts like profit, I am doubtful they can accurately or objectively analyze the economics or the business case for private long-term capital investments. Mr. Turner tries desperately and unsuccessfully to assemble "evidence" to prove the ridiculous assertion that regulation does not deter private investment. Will FCC Exempt Googleopoly from Anti-Competitive Behavior Enforcement?Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2009-10-21 13:17The litmus test of whether the FCC's proposed net neutrality rules are really endeavoring to prevent anti-competitive behavior on the Internet (and not about turning private broadband networks into a public utility), will be whether the rules apply to all Internet competitors, which could be anti-competitive, like the existing consensus FCC Broadband Policy Statement already does.
Why an FCC Googleopoly exemption from Net neutrality would be transparently capricious. First, there is more evidence of violations against net neutrality by one company, Google, in one year, than there is evidence against the entire broadband sector over the last five years! 72 House Democrats' Letter Urges FCC "to avoid tentative conclusions which favor government regulation"Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2009-10-16 15:5672 House Democrats wrote the FCC pushing back on the direction the FCC apparently is headed in its proposed Open Internet/net neutrality regulations to be voted on October 22nd. From the letter:
It was signed by the 72 House Democrats listed below: 72 Signers: FCC Is Already Chilling Smart Network InnovationSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2009-10-16 13:17The most basic smart network innovation and obviously reasonable network management is already being chilled by the FCC's expected absolute ban on any Internet traffic prioritization.
Who thinks it is not "smart" or "reasonable" to prioritize time-sensitive traffic over non-time-sensitive traffic? 10 questions for those questioning if competition policy worksSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2009-10-05 16:40Both the FCC and FTC Chairmen appear to be suggesting that the current fifteen-year competition policy experiment in law to promote competition and reduce regulation in communications will ultimately fail -- requiring new preemptive common-carrier-like nondiscrimination regulation of ISPs to preserve a free and open Internet.
Pages |