Genachowski Likely To Leave Broadband 'Deregulated' At least according to the Washington Post's anonymous sources... The FCC had three choices after a court ruled they lacked the authority to sanction Comcast for throttling customers (and lying about it). One, they could turn to Congress to pass a law to extend the FCC's legal authority -- an uphill battle given the incumbent carriers' political influence on Congress. Two, he could reclassify broadband ISPs -- something that's also an uphill battle given ISPs have promised to fight the FCC in court. Three, he could do nothing -- taking the politically safe road and make a significant show of accomplishing the FCC's already modest agenda. In reality, all three options end with the incumbent broadband providers complaining, firing up their lawyers any time the FCC tries to do anything, and insisting that a broadband utopia is forged with no empowered government watchdog at the helm. Option three wouldn't be surprising, given the FCC has already made clear its distaste for tough, politically-ugly fights against rather powerful campaign contributors (and part-time NSA analysts). Sources tell the Washington Post that FCC boss Julius Genachowski seems inclined to take the "do nothing" option: FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is expected to respond soon to the court ruling. Three sources at the agency said Genachowski has not made a final decision but has indicated in recent discussions that he is leaning toward keeping in place the current regulatory framework for broadband services but making some changes that would still bolster the FCC's chances of overseeing some broadband policies. According to the sources (which of course could be wrong, or intentionally giving the Post the runaround) -- Genachowski apparently believes that reclassifying carriers would "deter investment." That's something that carriers repeatedly claim about all regulation -- regardless of what said regulation accomplishes -- though consumer advocates have argued (pdf) that regulation plays only a small role in network investment. What plays a much larger role? Competition, something the FCC's broadband plan doesn't really address.
|
 | |  | | | Re: Ummm Grow a pair? Yeah, somebody needs top grow a pair, for sure! | |
| | | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Ummm Grow a pair? Courts rule against laws all the time, if the law itself is negated out by other laws... happens all the time. However, no law was ruled against.. the law was applied in this case. | |
|
| |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4
1 edit | said by cork1958:Yeah, somebody needs top grow a pair, for sure! Without express Congressional laws authorizing more powers for the FCC, Genachowski is somewhat limited in his ability to force ISPs to take actions that would be challenged in court.
But he does have a "bully pulpit" to make sure that ISPs toe the line on net neutrality. Basically, no ISP is breaking the concept of net neutrality now and any that would try it would be slammed in the press and by the FCC immediately. Also any breech of net neutrality that wasn't immediately backed away from would result in Congress actually giving the FCC the regulatory authority to issue neutrality rules.
In the Comcast case, the FCC had already won in the court of public opinion and got Comcast to back off from their P2P blocking policy. The penalty later was NOT needed. The bully pulpit worked and the FCC's lack of legal power was inconsequential.
Therefore, net neutrality is a non-issue and the FCC will be able to implement its broadband plan with very little trouble.
--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC? | |
| | | | | | Re: Ummm Grow a pair? Given that Section 254 refers specifically to "telecommunications services," how do you propose the FCC implement its universal service reform plan under the theory of ancillary authority? Even Verizon has said the FCC can't do it under the information services designation. And the FCC's general counsel himself confirmed as much in a blog post right after the DC court decision.
So exactly what is this path of "little trouble" to implementing the national broadband plan? | |
| | | | | mdurkin
join:1999-08-11
San Bruno, CA | Re: Ummm Grow a pair? In the Brand X case, the court left it to the FCC's discretion whether to apply the Computer Inquiry unbundling obligations (a 30 year line of decisions at the FCC) that were applicable to DSL to Cable broadband service. The FCC could have applied Computer Inquiry to cable modem service, but instead they chose to harmonize the two services by effectively lifting the application of Computer Inquiry to DSL. Computer Inquiry is what required telcos offering DSL to unbundle the DSL basic layer 2 transmission service and offer it to other ISPs to put their own layer 3 Internet access on top.
The Brand X case hinged on the definition of "telecommunications service" in TA96, as distinct from "telecommunications" generally. In Brand X, even the government, arguing on the side of the Cableco's, acknowledged that the retail cable modem Internet service is an "information service" that contains "telecommunications". That low level component telecommunications just doesn't become a "telecommunications service" under the definition in TA96 until the telecommunications is unbundled from the information service, whether by choice of the carrier (telco or cableco), or because of an FCC unbundling requirement like Computer Inquiry. It remains within the FCC's power under both Brand X and the more recent Comcast decision to re-apply Computer Inquiry's unbundling requirements to DSL and for the first time cable. That is not regulation of Internet, but through regulation of the underlying telecommunications and making it available to a lot of independent ISPs, the free and open Internet takes care of itself; if the big cablecos and telcos were to use a walled garden approach with their own retail customers, you'd still be able to buy from an independent ISP that didn't over the same infrastructure as a competitive advantage, and most likely the big guys would just back away from the walled garden approach because of the competition.
The real tragedy of TA96 is that if you study Computer Inquiry, it's incredibly clear that TA96 was intended to directly mirror and codify Computer Inquiry, that is to impose a legislated unbundling requirement, but through some sloppy wording in the Act written by legislators and interpretted by the Supreme Court, TA96 was gutted and made essentially useless in this area. | |
|
 Rogue WolfAte Your Homework, And Framed The Dog
join:2003-08-12
Troy, NY | Behold! The best government (corporate) money can buy. The only things that change these days are the names on the campaign contribution checks.
So many of this nation's broadband woes would be solved with greater competition, which- given the nature of terrestrial broadband- often requires government intervention. But competition would "deter investment" (i.e. possibly reduce the ridiculous profit margins, stock prices and dividends that being a monopoly or oligopoly brings), and so the biggest carriers make sure that their bought-and-paid-for legislators quash any government attempts to level the playing field... and then tell us with a straight face that it's "good for the consumer".
The first step towards reclaiming the government from corporate pockets would be to pass laws barring direct campaign contributions- but that would be somewhat akin to asking a heroin junkie to vote for outlawing needles.
--
Justin Timberlake brought sexy back. I'm putting it away again. | |
| | | | Re: Behold! I think it should say the worst government money can buy. It's not just campaign contibutions, it's money under the table, free trips, gifts, and probably drugs and hookers. | |
| | | | said by Rogue Wolf:The best government (corporate) money can buy. The only things that change these days are the names on the campaign contribution checks. So many of this nation's broadband woes would be solved with greater competition, which- given the nature of terrestrial broadband- often requires government intervention. But competition would "deter investment" (i.e. possibly reduce the ridiculous profit margins, stock prices and dividends that being a monopoly or oligopoly brings), and so the biggest carriers make sure that their bought-and-paid-for legislators quash any government attempts to level the playing field... and then tell us with a straight face that it's "good for the consumer". The first step towards reclaiming the government from corporate pockets would be to pass laws barring direct campaign contributions- but that would be somewhat akin to asking a heroin junkie to vote for outlawing needles. i'd rather have no internet than one given to me by the Federal government and i've rather have shitty DSL than the Federal government paying ISPs to expand their reach into "underserved" markets.
--
»valid.canardpc.com/cache/screens···7860.png | |
| | | | | Re: Behold! said by Somnambul33t:i'd rather have no internet than one given to me by the Federal government and i've rather have shitty DSL than the Federal government paying ISPs to expand their reach into "underserved" markets. Getting past the fact that the government doesn't give away anything, you would be among a very small minority who wouldn't use a government owned/operated internet. Guess you will never move to Utah to get government owned fttp, either. | |
| | | cacoPremium
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK | Easy to say when you currently have a provider that is lighting up Docsis 3.0 everywhere . The problem are rural areas that can't even get dsl, maybe LTE and Clear will be the silver bullet but reaching those hard to reach place$$$ is not high on any ISP agenda.
--
Politicians and diapers have one thing in common. They should both be changed regularly, and for the same reason. | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Barely Passing Grade If the FCC is smart, it will abandon this idiotic idea of a national broadband plan as well as the fees and new taxes needed to sustain it.
That isn't to say the FCC can't do something to help the average citizen. We've gone on for years about how subscription-based communications services get away with adding on bogus hidden fees that make the final price of their offerings far higher than the advertised price. The FCC already has existing authority to enforce laws against false advertising against companies which do this and should use this authority.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
| | | | Re: Barely Passing Grade Yes, we should be satisfied to watch the broadband industry become even more barren of competition, while other countries implement national broadband plans and pass us by. Our rankings mean nothing, the internet has never helped develop an economy before, and will have no effect in the future. Let's just be satisfied with what we have, because all government is evil and trying to force companies to invest their profits is immoral. | |
| | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Barely Passing Grade You're learning. | |
| | | | | | Re: Barely Passing Grade said by pnh102:You're learning. To be complacent? Sounds like a bad idea all around. | |
| | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Barely Passing Grade said by tdouglas22:To be complacent? Sounds like a bad idea all around. But neither of you address my original point. The FCC has significant powers to actually make things better for average people right now. Instead of effectively using those powers, it seeks to try yet another "plan" which most likely won't work.
I could understand and maybe even buy into the argument that the FCC should try something new if it used every weapon in its regulatory arsenal to no avail, but this is clearly not the case.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Barely Passing Grade said by pnh102:said by tdouglas22:To be complacent? Sounds like a bad idea all around. But neither of you address my original point. The FCC has significant powers to actually make things better for average people right now. Instead of effectively using those powers, it seeks to try yet another "plan" which most likely won't work. I could understand and maybe even buy into the argument that the FCC should try something new if it used every weapon in its regulatory arsenal to no avail, but this is clearly not the case. Congress gave the FCC the task of creating a broadband plan. It wasn't like spineless Genachowski just sat up one day and said "I'm gonna make a NBP"! | |
|
| Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | said by pnh102:IWe've gone on for years about how subscription-based communications services get away with adding on bogus hidden fees that make the final price of their offerings far higher than the advertised price. The FCC already has existing authority to enforce laws against false advertising against companies which do this and should use this authority. The FCC (both Democrats and Republicans) actually encourages (and has for years) this practice of under the line fees and false advertising. | |
|
| | Sigh I don't know what to say... this is just depressing. Can we get a head of the FCC who's crazy enough and visionary enough to be willing to take on the massive incumbents at the expense of his own career? Surely there's someone out there who is capable of handling this position.
Genachowski reminds me of someone I knew in high school. Not the smartest guy ever, but a hard worker who got good grades in all his Honors and AP classes. But his most defining trait was his utter cowardice and selfishness, a trait that led to most people disliking him. Genachowski even has that same arrogant smirk-like smile. Ugh...
What this industry needs is a real leader, not a wishy-washy spineless corporate whipping boy. | |
| |
1 edit | Re: Sigh Is there a politician anywhere who would/will stand up to massive incumbents at the expense of career??
Well, that politician is certainly the exception then, and that's what is wrong with politics. The profession doesn't really seem to attract backbone (never-mind integrity!).
After-all, why do folks go into politics?? Well it sure ain't to make a -stand- and take up self denial (toward the particular benefits of the field)! | |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | I think the story gets it wrong on one point... According to the sources (which of course could be wrong, or intentionally giving the Post the runaround) -- Genachowski apparently believes that reclassifying carriers would "deter investment." That's something that carriers repeatedly claim about all regulation -- regardless of what said regulation accomplishes -- though consumer advocates have argued (pdf) that regulation plays only a small role in network investment. What plays a much larger role? Competition, something the FCC's broadband plan doesn't really address. Adding more competition doesn't play a "larger role" in investment.. Competition, on the surface, is largely intended to drive the cost of something down - not something many investors want to throw money at. Today, investors want the most they can get back for their invested dollar as fast as they can. Flood the landscape with multiple providers and many are bound to think twice before investing with out some sort of edge. Its innovation and the demand FOR it that will convince investors, in my opinion, mostly that will attract investors. Especially in the case of communications where the market is pretty mature already. | |
| | | Golf Instruction Here are some tips to start your golf improvement journey. Stick with one instructional program so that you are learning consistent techniques for improving your game.
Golf Instruction | |
| | | | Re: Golf Instruction WTH does this have to do with broadband regulation??????  | |
|
| |
|
|
You don't say
·
·
·
·
