The FCC’s new professed mantra is “competition competition competition.”
However, the FCC appears to be pursuing a de facto policy of decompetition rather than competition.
There are two core reasons the FCC should not try to preempt State muni-broadband laws.
1. The Supreme Court has already indicated it would be unconstitutional.
2. It would be anti-competitive, the opposite of the FCC’s statutory purpose and legal mandate.
The New York Times’ utterly ridiculous Editorial Board recently as one addressed Title II Internet regulatory Reclassification and Network Neutrality – and they did so in utterly ridiculous fashion.
Pro-regulation interests often resort to highly misleading arguments to advance their cause. Fortunately that kind of deception ultimately exposes the weakness of their underlying argument and public policy position.
I am grateful that Senator John Thune, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai spoke at the Free State Foundation’s June 25 seminar, “Reforming Communications[...]
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.
This morning the House Judiciary Committee will undertake the markup of the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act. The Act would protect consumers from the increased costs in accessing and using the Internet by permanently extending the moratorium on Internet access taxes, and would prevent multiple and discriminatory taxation of Internet sales.
We are almost six years into the Barack Obama Administration. This president has been almost undoubtedly the worst ever at exceeding his Constitutional authority. “A phone and a pen” are[...]
Given the avalanche of misinformation and manufactured hysteria by net neutrality proponents over the FCC’s proposed rulemaking to make the FCC’s Open Internet Order comply with the Appeals Court Verizon v. FCC decision, AT&T’s FCC filing here (and below) is a welcome and much-needed total debunking of the call for Title II reclassification of broadband.
Over the past several years, the federal government has launched several programs to encourage the development of new and advanced telecommunications services in all areas of the country. The two[...]
I wish I could get Susan to agree that it’s no time to let captive thinking premised on a hypothesized market trump the competitive realities of the broadband marketplace. If such thinking ever were to lead to regulating broadband providers as public utilities, rest assured that consumers would be the real losers.
Yesterday, Chairman Goodlatte (R-VA) and Representatives Eshoo (D-CA), introduced the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act. This proposal is designed to ensure consumers’ access to broadband is protected from onerous local[...]
Wireless tax rates have reached all-time highs. Almost half of the states nationwide now impose a wireless tax above 10 percent (pushing the national average to more than 16.3 percent).[...]
Since the EU is already pushing net neutrality regulation of broadband and set on banning mobile roaming charges in the EU, it would not be surprising for the EU to propose that the U.S. also adopt net neutrality and broadband pricing restrictions in order to “harmonize” the EU-U.S. communications market as part of the upcoming U.S.-EU Free Trade Agreement.
|Joe Bast||Jim Lakely|
|David Applegate||Ross Kaminsky|
|Diane Carol Bast||S.T. Karnick|
|Joe Bastardi||Ralf Mangual|
|Alan Caruba||Maureen Martin|
|Paul Chesser||Seton Motley|
|Scott Cleland||Marita Noon|
|Edmund Contoski||John Nothdurft|
|Ben Domenech||Joy Pullmann|
|Paul Driessen||Erik Root|
|Richard Ebeling||James H. Rust|
|John Engle||Harrison Schmitt|
|Peter Ferrara||Taylor Smith|
|Matthew Glans||Steve Stanek|
|Jim Johnston||James M. Taylor|
|Jay Lehr||Rich Trzupek|