Genachowski Tries To Calm Cable Sector Chicken Littles Insists 'every market has competition,' sector 'an amazing success story' Speaking at The Cable Show in Los Angeles, FCC boss Julius Genachowski yesterday discussed the FCC's recent decision to partially reclassify broadband providers as common carriers under section two of the Communications Act. Despite the fact that more than 85% of the public lives in a largely uncompetitive duopoly market, Genachowski informed the crowd that "I believe virtually every market has competition." He also reiterated that rate regulation and unbundling (line sharing) were "off the table," while trying to calm an audience that truly believes any sector regulation is akin to puppy torture: Genachowski said his goal was getting back to a solid legal foundation that allows the commission to do what it has previously articulated, but not more. . . The chairman began the interview with a shout-out for the industry. The country would not be here talking about broadband adoption were it not for the pioneers of the cable industry and the cable modem,he said, calling it "an amazing American success story." Genachowski is very skilled at telling everyone precisely what they want to hear, but it's still not clear if trying to please everyone all the time is going to work moving forward. The FCC's broadband plan still doesn't tackle a lack of competition -- and it's fairly clear the agency's boss is willing to at least pretend that's not really a problem anyway. Robust competition would organically improve many sector problems (predatory billing, network neutrality, high prices, network investment) without the need for the additional regulation the sector so despises. Yet with a sector opposed to both competition and regulation -- and an FCC unwilling to truly stand up to them on hard issues -- forward progress from the consumer perspective remains a murky path at best.
|
  ddg4005Premium
join:2001-08-22
Bronx, NY
 ·Optimum Online
| Genachowski Tries To Calm Cable Sector Chicken Littles Amazing. These greedy-assed companies want to maintain the status quo, which I expect, and the damn commission that's supposed to ensure competition does nothing but talk out of its ass.
God bless America  .
--
A man must have a code -Bunk | |
|  | Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Genachowski Tries To Calm Cable Sector Chicken Littles yep, looks like the FCC is going to be nearly as worthless under Obama as it was under Bush (and Clinton, and Bush I).
Genachowski seems more interested in appearing consumer friendly, but as he twists and turns and bends over backwards to not "scare" the incumbents, it becomes clearer and clearer that the more things change, the more they stay the same. | |
| | | | | Re: Genachowski Tries To Calm Cable Sector Chicken Littles FCC was effective under Clinton. | |
| | | | Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Genachowski Tries To Calm Cable Sector Chicken Littles they did some good things, but allowed the ILECs to all but ignore the 1996 telecom law requirements for line sharing for dsl. maybe they weren't the ones to enforce that part of the law, I don't know. | |
|
| | | so write them your 20th letter
lol | |
|
| | My How He Has Changed His Tune Here's Genachowski, 8 months ago:
"And as many members of the Internet community and key Congressional leaders have noted, there are compelling reasons to be concerned about the future of openness. One reason has to do with limited competition among service providers. As American consumers make the shift from dial-up to broadband, their choice of providers has narrowed substantially. I don’t intend that remark as a policy conclusion or criticism -- it is simply a fact about today’s marketplace that we must acknowledge and incorporate into our policymaking."
Guess in the interim, with the National Broadband Plan showing 96% live in a duopoly or worse market, that he's rethunk the whole meaning of "competition." | |
| | | Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: So who bought him? I love it!
You forgot to include the option for drugs or hookers or free trips.
I wonder if there are ANY honest elected officials in the federal government?
The agencies are often made up of people who used to work for the companies they are supposed to be keeping an eye on or they have been promised cushy jobs with those same companies after they leave the agency. I suppose that's not quite as open a bribe, but it's still a bribe. With the DOJ becoming full of former attorneys from the entertainment industry, it's easy to see why they are getting what they want now.
And just think that Obama castigates the government of Afghanistan for being corrupt! | |
| | |
1 edit | Re: So who bought him? There are relatively genuine, if not necessarily honest, politicians. Quite recently a bill was voted on in the Senate that would cap banks at 10% of the market size and limit the amount of money they controlled, a very progressive idea that would permanently end the "too big to fail" problems. The bill was shot down 69 to 31. I consider those 31 senators to be at least concerned more with the future of the nation's economy than their own wallets. | |
| | | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: So who bought him? said by sonicmerlin: I consider those 31 senators to be at least concerned more with the future of the nation's economy than their own wallets. Then again, the cynic in me speaks up and says some Senators voted knowing it was going to fail by a large margin. So they voted "Yes" just to look good to constituents.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | Defining competition OK so.. Chairman Genachowski and the F.C.C. are in the midst of playing the Field of competition via a middle of the road approach. Granted, it seems he is trying to at least look ahead to future F.C.C. rulings that don't make him out to be the Bush era F.C.C. ( which we all know was one of the worst on record, from a consumers standpoint.), but here are two things that seem to be left out IMHO...
1.) Defining competition in the various markets (metro & rural)
Is the choice of ADSL/Cable (duopoly) we consumers are recieving in certain areas enough??? And where does the satellite and wireless fall into this line of thinking?
2.)The total disrespect that Yochai Benkler and The Berkman Institute have gotten from their own report. In that report, they found that by leveling the playing field of I.S.P's, in other countries, has brought about healthy robust competition. In kind thou, the countries that enacted these rulings actual had the balls to stand up to the carriers. Something the current F.C.C. is unwilling to do in the face of their own political suicide/deep-pockets.
It is truly looking at what competition is supposed to be (albeit sub-defining the various technologies to access the Internet) and how many of each technology is available in the metro/ rural markets. And ending the falsehoods the Internet Carriers in the U.S.A want to shove at our lawmakers and down the throats of the uneducated consumers as fact. | |
| | | No chance If Genachowski really thought his new "reclassification" was on solid ground, he would not be out at a cable industry trade show with his hat in his hand, essentially begging them not to challenge it.
--
"Don't steal. The government hates competition."
Beyond AM. Beyond FM. XM | |
|  koitsuPremium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:14 | "Virtually" I laughed when I read that. | |
|  camaro92Question everythingPremium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA | And I belive That i have to get whatever he is smoking, "I believe virtually every market has competition." Was this statement made before or after the flock of pigs flew by his office window. | |
| pkust
join:2001-08-09
Houston, TX | "Open Access" is sound policy, "Net Neutrality" is not Despite the fact that more than 85% of the public lives in a largely uncompetitive duopoly market, Genachowski informed the crowd that "I believe virtually every market has competition." Belief is a wonderful thing for church on Sundays, but it has no place in formulating public policy--particularly when facts refute said belief at every turn:
- Not only are most local markets duopolies, but the United States broadband market as a whole is little different, as just five companies (Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, AT&T, and Verizon) service 80% of the national market.
- The FCC's own commissioned study by the Berkmann Center explicitly addresses the importance of an engaged regulator in keeping barriers to entry low for new service providers:
An engaged regulator practically enforcing open access policy is more important than the formal adoption of the policy; incumbents resist access policies whether they are formerly government-owned or not
- Genechowski is ignoring the FCC's own (and still authoritative) 2002 Declaratory Ruling that put cable broadband beyond the reach of Title II regulation:
In this proceeding, the Commission has determined that cable modem Internet service is an interstate information service. It concludes that this service does not consist of a separate offering of a telecommunications service; nor is it a “cable service” under Title VI of the Communications Act. Genechowski will have to reverse this ruling to proceed with his "Third Way".
Title II regulation does not promote competition, will not encourage new investment in broadband infrastructures by new providers, and will further entrench the paradigm where incumbents game the system by offering token "investments" in exchange for tax and other incentives from government. Conversely, drawing new providers into markets, opening up markets to increased competition, will drain the incumbents' market power, shifting that power to consumers.
Comcast would never have dared play its games with blocking peer-to-peer traffic if customers had credible service alternatives readily available. Customers do not, so Comcast quite reasonably concludes that it has the power to engage in such behavior with impunity. After all, companies with market power can endure customer outrage, because they will continue to receive customer money regardless.
--
Cordially,
Peter Nayland Kust
pkust@tekmedia.com
TEKMedia Communications, Inc.
www.tekmedia.com | |
|
| |
|
|
·
·