This is the opening paragraph of an article by this author appearing today in the Fall 2010 issue of Icarus, the newsletter of the ABA’s Communications & Digital Technology Industries Committee, Section of Antitrust Law. “If the issue of broadband reclassification is not addressed with sensitivity to the history and traditions of FCC common carrier regulation, one can all too easily arrive at conclusions that simply cannot be squared with the legal framework applied to telecommunications for more than 30 years.”
The highly polarized debate over so-called net neutrality at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) exposes serious philosophical differences about the appropriate role of government in managing technological change. Neither side is unfortunately free either from hyperbole or fear-mongering. And neither side is completely right.
Read the whole essay. It’s provocative.
Note: I have not appeared as counsel for any party to the FCC’s current net neutrality NOI proceeding and was not paid to write this essay (despite what my colleagues and clients in the public interest community may claim). I represented Google in the past but now am ethically precluded from doing so because my law firm has a conflict of interest, being adverse to Google in an employment age discrimination case before the California Supreme Court. The article nonetheless does not reflect the views or opinions of my firm or any of my clients, past or present.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Glenn Manishin, Brock N. Meeks. Brock N. Meeks said: Good Read RT @glennm: Why Net Neutrality Rules and Broadband “Third Way” Reclassification Are Unnecessary and Unlawful http://ht.ly/2SMEK […]
[…] [Cross-posted at LexDigerati] […]
[…] deal, the AdMob acquisition and the like are mine and mine alone. (See, for instance, my Oct. 2010 and April 2008 posts.) The descriptions on this site say explicitly that my clients “have […]