Genachowski Still Loves Neutrality, Mum On Reclassification Insists court loss did nothing to "weaken unwavering commitment" to neutrality As the FCC begins considering the crafting of network neutrality rules, the agency held a panel yesterday in Seattle discussing the idea. If you've followed the debate since it really took off in 2005 -- little of what was discussed will be new to you -- though obviously the FCC's recent court loss to Comcast was the elephant in the room -- as the FCC remained mute on how they plan to expand their authority over ISPs. In a video message to panel attendees yesterday, FCC boss Julius Genachowski re-iterated his dedication to network neutrality, calling the recent court decision "an unfortunate development" that has "done nothing to weaken my unwavering commitment to ensuring that the free and open Internet is preserved and protected."
|
  camaro92Question everythingPremium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA | Because Reclassification Would bring down the wrath of GOD.... I mean the isp's and there lobbyist. | |
| Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| put up or shut up it's getting a little old for Julius to keep espousing his support for net neutrality and other things while doing absolutely nothing to ensure the FCC has authority for it's actions.
he needs to either say what he is going to do about FCC authority, or shut up about what he supports and stop pretending. | |
|  | | | Re: put up or shut up Amen.
It's clear he's just peeing in his pants thinking about this. Chairmanshiping is hard.
Do your business or leave the toilet. | |
| |  GbcueAlmost P.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8 | New the same as the old. | |
| |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | said by nasadude:it's getting a little old for Julius to keep espousing his support for net neutrality and other things while doing absolutely nothing to ensure the FCC has authority for it's actions. he needs to either say what he is going to do about FCC authority, or shut up about what he supports and stop pretending. He needs to get LEGAL authority by having Congress pass a law. Coming up with ways to circumvent the courts decision is not a valid method.
--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC? | |
| | | | | Re: put up or shut up Uh, No. Congress passed a law already. It's called the Telecom Act of 1996. Powell and Martin decided to play this game of classification, calling two-way communications networks information services. According to the Brand-X decision, the FCC is perfectly within its rights to reverse those classification decisions, and put its rules back right with Congress' law. | |
| | | | | I'm curious MMH, what do you think the point of the '96 Telecom Act was? What was Clinton's and Congress's intent when passing it? | |
| | | | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: put up or shut up said by sonicmerlin:I'm curious MMH, what do you think the point of the '96 Telecom Act was? »www.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.txt
To promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies. Many try to ignore the "reduce regulation" part.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommun···_of_1996
Its stated objective was to open up markets to competition by removing regulatory barriers to entry: The conference report refers to the bill “to provide for a pro-competitive, de-regulatory national policy framework designed to accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of advanced services and information technologies and services to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to competition....” [2 Conference Report, Telecommunications Act of 1996, House of Representatives, 104th Congress, 2d Session, H.Rept. 104-458, at p. 1.] So the FCC trying to use this act to strengthen regulation goes against the INTENT of the act.
--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC? | |
| | | | | | | Re: put up or shut up Uh, no. Congress gave the FCC a path to deregulation in the Act for telecommunications, via Section 10 forbearance. Powell broke that with his classification game.
But you misread history. Yes, the 96A was deregulatory, but it was always a regulatory path to deregulation. Regulate to create competition, then if competition develops, deregulate.
The 96A created the concept of CLECs and unbundling, both highly regulatory. The 96A has things like Section 271 checklists, which again, work by requiring compliance with other new regulations to get out from other old regulations.
You can try and rewrite history, but those of us who were there at the time remember and know what this was all about.
All that aside, the FCC reclassifying simply restores Congress' framework, which will maintain the appropriate level of current deregulation, with the restoration of the basic non-discrimination protections in Title II -- what Congress always intended.
But this discussion is pointless. Genachowski is a scared little man who will do nothing to anger the incumbents. | |
|
| |
|
|
