Facebook

Current attention on the “tree” of the FCC’s pending Open Internet Order vote on net neutrality, has many “missing the forest” of additional serious problems with outdated 1934 communications law.   

To put net neutrality in the context of all the legal authority obsolescence problems faced by the FCC, please don’t miss this eye-opening one-page summary (here and below) of my latest white paper, “The Need for Modernizing Communications Law for American Consumers.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                           

January 16, 2015

Contact:  Scott Cleland 703-217-2407

The FCC Should Defer to an Engaged Congress to Best Resolve its Real Internet Authority Gaps

There is No Legitimate Policy/Process Reason Why FCC Can’t Wait a Reasonable Period of Time to Seek a Permanent Bipartisan Congressional Solution Rather than the FCC’s 0-2 Legal Record

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

Is the new Congress watching?

America’s government-advantaged aristechracy, which enjoys the most favorable taxation, regulation, and law enforcement treatment of any American industry by far, has the hubris to lobby the FCC for billions of dollars in implicit economic subsidies from consumers via the imposition of maximal FCC Title II regulation, taxation and law enforcement of ISPs.  

Consider the Internet Association’s Title II position.

In November, the Internet Association’s President Michael Beckerman said: “Using Title II authority, along with the right set of enforceable rules… would establish the strong net neutrality protections Internet users require.”

Please don’t miss my Daily Caller op-ed here: “Who Pays for Net Neutrality?”

It’s the core question net neutrality proponents don’t want asked and won’t answer.

This is Part 75 of my FCC Open Internet Order Series.

***                 

FCC Open Internet Order Series

Part 1: The Many Vulnerabilities of an Open Internet [9-24-09]

Please don’t miss my Daily Caller op-ed here: “Will the FCC Break the Internet?”

It explains how the FCC could effectively break the Internet and seriously undermine U.S. trade and foreign policy interests, if it redefined the legal status of American Internet services to ITU utility-regulated “telecommunications” services.

This is Part 68 of my FCC Open Internet Order Series.

***

FCC Open Internet Order Series

Part 1: The Many Vulnerabilities of an Open Internet [9-24-09]

Please don’t miss my Daily Caller op-ed here: “Silicon Valley’s Biggest Internet Mistake,” to learn the disastrous international repercussions for the Internet of the FCC regulating the American Internet as a “telecommunications” utility.

This is Part 67 of my FCC Open Internet Order Series.

***

FCC Open Internet Order Series

Part 1: The Many Vulnerabilities of an Open Internet [9-24-09]

Please read my latest Daily Caller op-ed: “Supreme Court & European Union Expose Google's Massive Privacy Liabilities.” See here.

It connects the dots of what two recent Supreme Court and three recent EU privacy decisions mean for individuals’ privacy in general and Google’s privacy liabilities in particular.

If Silicon Valley folks are indeed the smartest of the smart, how could they be so easily fooled on net neutrality?

Normally smarts distinguish between what’s testable and real versus what is the pixie-dust of dreams.  

So where’s the real data and sound scientific thinking behind Silicon Valley’s grandiose net neutrality presumptions?

Why isn’t Silicon Valley adhering to its own data-driven, scientific decision-making principles?

Summary of Silicon Valley’s 6 Biggest Net Neutrality Fantasies:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                           

July 11, 2014

Contact:  Scott Cleland 703-217-2407

Broadband Reclassification is a Problem Pretending to be a Solution; & Un-supported by the Facts, Unjustified on the Merits, & Unwise Given FCC’s Record of Title II Failures

Networks Aren’t Free; Businesses Pay for Electricity, Water, Gas, Transport & Delivery

Some things are way too important to let slip by uncontested.

The FCC has asserted a foundational regulatory premise that warrants rebuttal and disproving, given that the FCC is considering if Internet access, and Internet backbone peering, should be regulated like a utility under Title II telephone common carrier regulation.

In an important speech on Internet interconnection last month to the Progressive Policy Institute, the very able and experienced Ruth Milkman, Chairman Tom Wheeler’s Chief of Staff, asserted that “communications networks are no different” than railroad and electricity networks when it comes to interconnection. “… At bottom… the fact is that a network without connections and interconnections is one that simply doesn’t work. Disconnected networks do not serve the public interest.”