Verizon

Kudos are due to FCC Chairman Wheeler for quickly announcing that “it is time to act with dispatch” on the IP transition, and putting that into swift action.

As the FCC refocuses on the IP transition, some important perspective is warranted.

First, the consumer-driven transition to IP in the marketplace is already three quarters complete.

Please see my latest Daily Caller op-ed, “YouTube is Ultimate a la Carte” – here -- on Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Rockefeller’s new legislation: “Consumer Choice in Online Video Act.”

• It is Part 21 of my Broadband Internet Pricing Freedom series.

Broadband Internet Pricing Freedom Series

Part 1: Netflix' Glass House Temper Tantrum Over Broadband Usage Fees [7-26-11]

Please see my latest Daily Caller op-ed: “Dial-up Rules for the Broadband Age?” -- here -- which rebuts Marvin Ammori’s Wired op-ed: “We’re about to Lose Net Neutrality – and the Internet as we know it.”

This is Part 35 of the 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 new white paper:  A Modern Vision for the FCC: How the FCC Can Modernize its Policy Approaches for the 21^st Century (here/PDF).

• It is the first comprehensive review of FCC policy and vision through the lens of what is modern vs. what is nostalgist.
• Please don’t miss the first slide, a chart that concisely defines modern vs. nostalgist FCC visions.
• My recommendation -- A Modern FCC Policy Agenda -- is near the end of this post.    

NetCompetition Capitol Hill Event:

A Modern Vision for the FCC: How the FCC Can Modernize its Policy Approaches for the 21^st Century

Join NetCompetition® and an esteemed panel to discuss: how the FCC can modernize its policy approaches to adapt to modern technology and market realities and unleash innovation, investment and consumer welfare in the 21^st century global economy. The panel will discuss:

• The transition to all Internet-Protocol communications networks;
• Spectrum incentive auctions and building the long-term spectrum pipeline; and
• Internet ecosystem competition and the future of the FCC.

Where: 2322 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515

When: Monday, November 4, 2013

Time: 12:00 PM - 1:30 PM

If you are interested in learning the linchpin issue to watch to discern whether the FCC’s competition policy will be modern or nostalgist directionally, don’t miss my Daily Caller Op-ed: “The Modern FCC Competition-Policy Linchpin” – here.

• It is Part 6 in the Modernization Consensus Research Series.

Modernization Consensus Series

Part 1: Implications of Google's Broadband Plans for Competition and Regulation - Part 1 Modernization Consensus Series [1-28-13]

Just like the wisdom that one cannot make a silk purse from a sow’s ear; one cannot make “modern” FCC policy from obsolete communications law.

Apparently that is not stopping Former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt and Greg Rosston from trying in their new white paper: “Articulating a Modern Approach to FCC Competition Policy.”   

Their paper contrives:  “three different competition policy approaches: the classicrole of regulating terms and conditions of sale, the modernrole of using various tools to create largely deregulated, multi-firm, competitive markets, and the laissez-faire approach of believing that unregulated markets, even if monopolized, will produce the best outcome.”

If the Washington Post had fact-checked Save-the-Internet’s spin, or even sought out an alternative viewpoint for balance, they easily could have avoided the obvious fundamental factual mistakes in their article: “What Europe can teach us about keeping the Internet open and free.”

First, Mr. Fung inaccurately attributed Save-the-Internet’s extreme and highly-controversial definition of net neutrality -- “all Internet traffic, no matter where’s its going or who it came from, should be treated the same” -- as the FCC’s “concept of net neutrality,” when the FCC’s compromise net neutrality definition was much less controversial and very different than the Post’s Save-the-Internet characterization.

Expect net neutrality proponents to pressure the FCC to reclassify broadband as a Title II common carrier telephone service, if as many expect, the D.C. Appeals Court overturns much, or possibly all, of the FCC’s Open Internet Order in the coming months.

Observers of the September 9^th oral argument heard Judges Tatel and Silberman strongly question the legality of applying common carrier-like regulation to an unregulated information service.

If you want to know why it would be a legal non-starter for the FCC to then completely reverse course and try to reclassify broadband as Title II common carrier service, please listen to my video explanation, starting at 7:52. (The written version of my argument is part 5 of this post.)

Professor Susan Crawford’s Bloomberg op-ed, “New FCC Head Must Reclaim Authority over Telecom,” exposes a profound lack of substance, in being unable to identify any real market problem warranting FCC regulation.

Let’s review Professor Crawford’s litany of contrived policy problems.

First, she charges that ISPs are working “to ensure no regulator has any real authority over them.” No, ISPs are pointing out the unique excessiveness of having THREE government entities having authority over them on the same general matters. ISPs are not asking for any reduction in authority for the DOJ or the FTC. Specifically, Verizon is asking the D.C. Appeals Court to decide if the FCC exceeded its legal authority in imposing prophylactic common-carrier-like regulation on companies that have not done anything wrong.