Supplying more radio spectrum to satisfy Americans’ rocketing demand for more mobile bandwidth is a bipartisan and common sense goal.
Scott Cleland | All Articles
- Subscribe to RSS
Scott Cleland is Chairman of NetCompetition® a pro-competition e-forum supported by broadband interests and President of Precursor LLC, a research consultancy for Fortune 500 companies. He is author of the book: Search & Destroy Why You Can’t Trust Google Inc.
The U.S. government’s Internet priorities in Europe are upside down. It has chosen bits over bodies, prioritizing protecting the neutrality of innumerable inanimate Internet bits over protecting peoples’ privacy and personal data.
Egalitarian political activist Larry Lessig is running for president of the United States to the left of Bernie Sanders, ostensibly on the singular platform of campaign finance reform.
The government’s cyber-priorities are backwards. It has chosen bits over bodies, defending the virtual world of ones and zeroes more than the real world of people and homeland security.
Why is the federal government against faster smartphone Internet access?
The FCC could not have gambled more riskily in how it implemented net neutrality. It simultaneously snubbed all three branches of the U.S. Government with its Title II utility regulation approach.
A “can-do attitude” was the essence of the Internet for the last twenty years, making it a unique decentralized place of endless possibilities and opportunities.
If you are guilty until proven innocent of charges that can be made up after the fact, you may be in FCC-ville.
The FCC’s irrational fear of commercial Internet fast lanes has detoured communications innovation to the government slow lane.
The collateral damage is beginning to pile up from the FCC’s February decision to trigger Title II telephone utility regulation of the Internet.
President Obama recently criticized the European Union for pursuing an antitrust case against Google over plans to establish a European Digital Single Market, and for its trade positions in the US-EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.
What could possibly go wrong?
Expect the FCC’s partisan arbitrariness to be the downfall of its Title II net neutrality rules in court.
“Fixing” what’s not broken. Radically changing what everyone likes. Abandoning what works exceptionally well for what’s failed miserably in the past, and forcing outdated regulations on what is the most modern part of the economy.
Net neutrality and Title II FCC Internet regulation are not the same.
A bird in the hand is still worth two in the bush.
The world is watching.
The FCC imagines it doesn’t need Congress, but it does.
Isn’t Congress due the same deference from the FCC that the FCC expects from the courts?