dslreports logo
Lessig: It's Time To Gut The FCC
And replace it with something less dysfunctional and dangerous...
Some time ago, Stanford Professor noted technologist Larry Lessig decided to shift his primary focus from copyright reform to battling corruption, part of this project involving his launch of the Change Congress website. Lessig's also taking aim at the FCC, this week penning a piece for Newsweek on how he believes the FCC should be disbanded and replaced with an agency that isn't dominated by powerful lobbyists and partisan rhetoric, and whose job is -- in part -- to stay out of the way of good ideas:
quote:
The solution here is not tinkering. You can't fix DNA. You have to bury it. President Obama should get Congress to shut down the FCC and similar vestigial regulators, which put stability and special interests above the public good. In their place, Congress should create something we could call the Innovation Environment Protection Agency (iEPA), charged with a simple founding mission: "minimal intervention to maximize innovation." The iEPA's core purpose would be to protect innovation from its two historical enemies—excessive government favors, and excessive private monopoly power.
Part of Lessig's proposal would involve the FCC (sorry, iEPA) no longer being a revolving lobbyist door for the industries they're regulating. His proposal is interesting, but Lessig faces a chicken and the egg scenario of broken government. The very corruption and dysfunction Lessig targets will likely prevent any kind of substantive reform from taking place.
view:
topics flat nest 

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

1 recommendation

pnh102

Premium Member

Lessig Misses the Point

I do agree that the FCC needs to stick to its original intended purpose in that it needs to regulate RF users so they do not trample upon one another's licensed spectrum. This is a reasonable use of government power. The FCC has to get out of the content regulation racket.

However, if Lessig really believes that replacing one government agency which is "too much in bed with lobbyists" with another one that will somehow, magically, "not be in bed with lobbyists," then he simply does not understand how government works.

Lobbying has been a part of every government since governments themselves came into existence. You will never be rid of lobbyists, ever. The best you can hope for is getting rid of the people who are unduly influenced by lobbyists.

asdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net

asdfdfdfdfdfdf

Anon

Re: Lessig Misses the Point

I largely agree, especially with your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs.

Given the corrupted state of the nation I think the chances are very high that whatever we replaced the fcc with would be even more vulnerable.

On the other hand, although wealth has always bought political influence there have been times and societies where humanity has done a much better job of controlling the most egregious effects. So it isn't impossible to set conditions which help to clean a lot of this up. We have been going through an historical period where we blindly worship greed and have had no interest in setting boundaries, which hasn't helped bring out the best in human nature.

I don't agree with him that institutional dna can't be changed. I actually don't think fcc dna is the problem. It would go a long way if appointments were made based upon something other than an attempt to ideologically stack or hand out favors. Obama has done a pretty good job with choices so far and I hold out some hope that things may get at least marginally better in the near future. I think congressional pressure to clean up and set the agency on a better path focused on technical expertise could help as well. Completely destroying and starting from scratch is very complicated and I have little faith that the wisdom exists in washington to accomplish something like that.
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD

1 recommendation

nasadude to pnh102

Member

to pnh102
look, the real issue here is the fact that every single agency in our government has been politicized in the last 8 years. I'm not saying some of this crap didn't start earlier than W, but the scope of ineptness that has pervaded our government is breathtaking.

the FCC is no exception. It appears any agency can do whatever the hell the politically appointed leaders want to do (or what they are told to do): gut the endangered species act? sure, no problem. gut regulation and safety in mining, manufacturing, etc.? mission accomplished. Cede telecom policies and infrastructure control to big business? got 'er done!

most of our government is currently run by "heck of a job, Brownies" that want to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the government is incapable of running anything and they have succeeded.

W even fvkd up NASA and I thought that would be impossible to do.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

1 edit

pnh102

Premium Member

Re: Lessig Misses the Point

I see. So basically, it is all Bush's fault.

If you want to have a serious discussion, we can look at the results of Bush's broadband policy:

1. Far more people can get broadband now than in 2001.
2. Far more people have more choices in broadband than they had in 2001.
3. People now have access to fiber-optic broadband service which did not exist in 2001.

Sounds like success to me.

Supervisor
Premium Member
join:2006-03-26
Marysville, PA

Supervisor

Premium Member

Re: Lessig Misses the Point

Success? One might also assume that even more people might have broadband now if we had NOT had Bush's broadband policy.
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL

lesopp

Member

Re: Lessig Misses the Point

Yes, but without a defined alternative policy that is only a rhetorical assumption.

Besides, Bush didn't have a broadband policy he left that in the pocket of his blue jeans along with a clue given him by by his mom. Too bad Laura washed them before his first cabinet meeting. Nope there was no policy, he merely continued with what was already there.

Ignite
Premium Member
join:2004-03-18
UK

1 recommendation

Ignite to pnh102

Premium Member

to pnh102
Is that a 'result of' or 'inspite of'?

I'd welcome a demonstration of cause and effect for your 3 points and how the incumbent President's policies can be directly linked to them please.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I am asking for clear cause and effect. Having been on this site for some time I'm far from convinced but welcome correction and education.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

Re: Lessig Misses the Point

That's exactly my point. If you really want to show how absurd "broadband policy" is we could even throw the Clinton administration into the mix. Under Clinton, far fewer people could get broadband than under Bush. While that is a true statement, it would be silly to suggest that Clinton's "broadband policy" was a "failure" compared to Bush's "broadband policy."

Ignite
Premium Member
join:2004-03-18
UK

2 edits

Ignite

Premium Member

Re: Lessig Misses the Point

Considering how relatively irrelevant broadband was up to 2001 I'm not sure that a broadband policy of any sort was really a major priority, not the case now.

Would it not be more relevant to assess the broadband policies of other members of the G8 for comparison?

I think lack of a policy rather than a policy is perhaps people's beef. Broadband was barely mentioned while Clinton was incumbent, in the past years there's been plenty of talk but action is a different matter.

Policies of successive governments have to be considered in the context of the country and world at the time. Broadband is far more of an issue now than it was back in 2000, and to say otherwise is, I think, deflecting blame away and hiding the issue. Easily done, but pointless and doesn't progress anything.

One could also say that Clinton didn't deal with the economic issues of 2008 any better than Bush, however as they weren't issues at the time it's a fallacy to do so.

Compare Bush with policies in the other G8 during his incumbency, not with those of the previous incumbent who didn't face the same world or issues.

That the FCC have totally failed to rise up to these new challenges in the past 8 years can be considered to at least in part sit on the shoulders of the incumbent President and Government.

The one highlight is the presence of FiOS, beyond that that even ADSL2+ is considered new and wonderful in the US is crazy. Cable companies of varying qualities testing and applying transfer caps, etc, etc, etc.

Some things are too important to let a totally laissez faire market rule them completely, nothing wrong with some guidance to promote, not constrain, free market. Telecomms is a natural infrastructure based monopoly which is not to the benefit of consumers. Sometimes a little guidance can be a good thing, especially when discussing the largest economy in the world, and the one which should be leading the way.
moonpuppy (banned)
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

moonpuppy (banned)

Member

Re: Lessig Misses the Point

said by Ignite:

One could also say that Clinton didn't deal with the economic issues of 2008 any better than Bush, however as they weren't issues at the time it's a fallacy to do so.
Guess you forgot about the Tech Bubble that happened on Clinton's watch.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Te ··· h_bubble

And, since broadband is a "tech" service, I can see how the collapse of the "dot.com" companies could be related.


n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY

1 recommendation

n2jtx

Member

It Ain't Gonna Work

The sad part is that anything created to replace the FCC will be worse. I would bet my last dollar that it would be so stacked with hacks and industry insiders, and little technical staff, that it would nothing more than the Washington, DC office of AT&T, Verizon, CTIA and the NAB. Consumers and technologists would be ten feet under the bottom of the pole.
Pv8man
join:2008-07-24
Hammond, IN

Pv8man

Member

It's nice to dream..

It's nice to dream

But I doubt that this will happen, they won't LET IT happen.

I can already hear the false regurgitated talking points and PR spin doctors starting their engines.

Nanoprobe3
Looking for cures in memory of Mom
Premium Member
join:2003-05-11
Crab Nebula

1 recommendation

Nanoprobe3

Premium Member

Re: It's nice to dream..

They should gut the IRS too but that ain't gonna happen either. Obama has to have something to reward all his cronies.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

Re: It's nice to dream..

said by Nanoprobe3:

They should gut the IRS too but that ain't gonna happen either.
To be fair, even if the IRS was gutted, there's no way that its successor agency would be any less ruthless than the IRS is now.

The IRS' job is to soak taxpayers for the purposes of funding the government. Whether or not the IRS exists, the government still needs money to operate, and a replacement agency would have to do the same things the IRS does now in order to accomplish its goal.

If you want a "kinder, gentler" IRS, you can start by lowering taxes and reducing government spending drastically.

Nanoprobe3
Looking for cures in memory of Mom
Premium Member
join:2003-05-11
Crab Nebula

Nanoprobe3

Premium Member

Re: It's nice to dream..

The IRS could be sterilized in just 2 words. FLAT TAX. Don't hold your breath on that one either. Too many people lying sideways in the public trough.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

Re: It's nice to dream..

said by Nanoprobe3:

The IRS could be sterilized in just 2 words. FLAT TAX. Don't hold your breath on that one either. Too many people lying sideways in the public trough.
But who is going to ensure that people do not lie about their income in order to pay less tax? Who is going to make sure that people pay the tax? You'd need either the IRS or a new government agency that would do the same thing as the IRS.

I agree with your latter statement though.

Nanoprobe3
Looking for cures in memory of Mom
Premium Member
join:2003-05-11
Crab Nebula

2 edits

Nanoprobe3

Premium Member

Re: It's nice to dream..

said by pnh102:
said by Nanoprobe3:

The IRS could be sterilized in just 2 words. FLAT TAX. Don't hold your breath on that one either. Too many people lying sideways in the public trough.
But who is going to ensure that people do not lie about their income in order to pay less tax? Who is going to make sure that people pay the tax? You'd need either the IRS or a new government agency that would do the same thing as the IRS.

I agree with your latter statement though.
You only pay a tax on things you buy no matter what your income thus eliminating the need to report income which in turn eliminates the IRS or any other agency they can dream up.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

Re: It's nice to dream..

said by Nanoprobe3:

You only pay a tax on things you buy no matter what your income thus eliminating the need to report income which in turn eliminates the IRS or any other agency they can dream up.
I think you're talking more about the Fair Tax as opposed to a flat income tax. The Fair Tax is a high sales tax imposed to the end purchaser of a retail item.

This tax still does not eliminate the need for a collection and enforcement agency. For example, under the current sales tax laws in most states, reseller certificates can be used to buy things without paying sales tax provided they are resold by the buyer. If people had to stare a 25% or more sales tax in the face, I guarantee there would be a far more incentive to use such certificates to dodge the sales tax. A government agency would have to be tasked with the purpose of investigating and prosecuting such fraud. To me, that brings up a whole host of privacy questions. If you think the IRS is bad now when it comes to auditing people, think of how many people would get audited each time they purchased a big ticket item without paying tax?
Pv8man
join:2008-07-24
Hammond, IN

1 recommendation

Pv8man

Member

By the way, just because I don't think it can happen, does not mean I am not still going to try.

I'm still trying to get a hold of my area representatives

Mark Leyva
Peter Visclosky

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords

MVM

Re: It's nice to dream..

said by Pv8man:

By the way, just because I don't think it can happen, does not mean I am not still going to try.

I'm still trying to get a hold of my area representatives

Mark Leyva
Peter Visclosky
Awesome! You rock!

Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL

Robert to Pv8man

Premium Member

to Pv8man
said by Pv8man:

It's nice to dream

But I doubt that this will happen, they won't LET IT happen.

I can already hear the false regurgitated talking points and PR spin doctors starting their engines.
I actually think our politicians would dissolve the FCC and replace it with something else. Only because this time, it would allow them to give powers to the new organization that the FCC did not have that would benefit lobbyists and mega corporations.

JasonOD
@comcast.net

JasonOD

Anon

This all sounds too 'Utopian'

All this is going to do is make the environment more difficult for companies to get anything done, likely resulting in the opposite of the desired effect Lessig wants to see.

Lessig is just too radical, plus he's an ardent supporter of the EFF.
Pv8man
join:2008-07-24
Hammond, IN

Pv8man

Member

Re: This all sounds too 'Utopian'

Said by JasonOD
"All this is going to do is make the environment more difficult for companies to get anything done"

It would make it difficult for the larger corrupt companies to continue manipulating the country, and stifling innovation for the sake of their own profit.

I think it's the smaller independent companies who will come out on top, the best company with the best product...pure un-tampered with competition.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Lessig wants deregulation of communications

Lessig:
Environment Protection Agency (iEPA), charged with a simple founding mission: "minimal intervention to maximize innovation." The iEPA's core purpose would be to protect innovation from its two historical enemies—excessive government favors, and excessive private monopoly power.

The iEPA's first task would thus be to reverse the unrestrained growth of these monopolies.

The iEPA's second task should be to assure that the nation's basic communications infrastructure spectrum— the wires, cables and cellular towers that serve as the highways of the information economy—remain open to new innovation, no matter who owns them.
Lessig is showing some form of schizophrenia here. He says less regulation is the key. But then sets his new iEPA two tasks that need a great deal of regulation to accomplish - breaking up and de-powering monopolies and then getting in to the day to day running of companies to make sure they don't hinder innovation.

It sounds good in pronouncements like Lessig made, but making it happen keeps the iEPA as political as anything the FCC does.

Fox McCloud
Crazy like a fox.
join:2006-07-23

Fox McCloud

Member

hmm

sell off all the spectrum, abolish it, and treat spectrum as private property...end of story.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine

Member

Re: hmm

said by Fox McCloud:

sell off all the spectrum, abolish it, and treat spectrum as private property...end of story.
That's an interesting thought, but how exactly are you treating signals that are on my property? Are they my property or the property of whom originated it?

I know that in Canada they have ruled that the former is true. This is in regards to DirecTV signals being received by Canadians, and since DirecTV is NOT licensed by the CRTC, the signals being received by Canadians are legal to receive because it is on their property.

Fox McCloud
Crazy like a fox.
join:2006-07-23

Fox McCloud

Member

Re: hmm

said by fifty nine:
said by Fox McCloud:

sell off all the spectrum, abolish it, and treat spectrum as private property...end of story.
That's an interesting thought, but how exactly are you treating signals that are on my property? Are they my property or the property of whom originated it?

I know that in Canada they have ruled that the former is true. This is in regards to DirecTV signals being received by Canadians, and since DirecTV is NOT licensed by the CRTC, the signals being received by Canadians are legal to receive because it is on their property.
I tend to think of whom originated it...but that's me....I don't have the full idea of how it would fully work, to be honest...what are your ideas?

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

2 edits

funchords

MVM

My take-FCC or no FCC, the goal is to Liberate Innovation

I admire Prof. Larry Lessig. I admire him, and I agree with the goals he outlines as the rationale for doing away with the FCC. Still, I worry about this Newsweek piece because it evokes the same response as Ron Paul's campaign did for many.

Ron Paul imagines a United States without income taxes. Ron Paul was probably not going to abolish the IRS within his first 100 days but the behavior of people is "better the devil you know." Everyone in this generation has filed tax returns. Except for two brief periods in the 1800s, the Income Tax was not part of regular life in the USA until 95 years ago. Even now, roughly half of US citizens do not pay any, and the vast majority of tax dollars are paid by the vast minority of income earners. But as citizens and voters with our own individual experiences with the tax, we honestly and unselfishly worry that the wholesale loss of these tax dollars would ruin the country.

Our treaties and markets require many of the functions of the FCC -- those won't go away if we were to nuke the Commission. Many of its functions will remain because they need to remain.

As I read what Lessig wrote, the end goal is greater than the tactic: Remove the influences of great corporate powers on information and its conduits.

Both Ron Paul and Larry Lessig concluded that to reach their goals, you can't tinker with a tilting monolith and expect to fix it. One cannot "tweak" the Tower of Pisa and make it right. Instead of repair, what is required might be more on the scale of demolition and a fundamentally new design.


Can't Tweak This


Karl is correct that booting the FCC simply moves the playing field, and the Professor also recognizes that as well. In Lessig's vision, the new goal will be to protect the people's information conduits from the innovation-limiting schemes of its its owners and the government. In a way, his concept is very much like the FCC's intended autonomy separate from the three branches of government.

And while "Hands off the Internet" (a shill organization made up of Telcos) would love the part about limiting government regulation of the Internet, their agenda is actually regulate what its captive audience can do and access. If you've read your Terms of Service documents recently, you get a pretty good picture of their vision of the Internet of our future -- one that is heavily regulated by a few ISPs who block ports, sites, and even speech at their sole discretion.

ISPs want to have a "cut" in everything you and I can say or see on the Internet. Breaking the 'Net's neutral treatment of packets, ISPs want to be able to promote the things that make cash for them and limit (delay, degrade, or deny -- even dilapidate) the things that don't.

So, who should regulate what you and I can say or see on the Internet? A company with monopolistic market powers? A too-corruptible government?

Robb Topolski
qworster
join:2001-11-25
Bryn Mawr, PA

2 edits

qworster

Member

The FCC needs to be run by engineers!

What the FCC regulates is science, NOT art! As such, it should be run by scientists and engineers-NOT the lawyers who have always run it.

Originally the FCC came into being to PREVENT interference between (then) radio stations. Now it ENCOURAGES interference-just look at the digital radio system it approved that has turned the AM radio nand into a buzz box!

I have posted about this before and shall not repeat what I have typed boefore. Let's simply say that there are abundant reasons to scrap the FCC....
nitzan
Premium Member
join:2008-02-27

nitzan

Premium Member

Amen.

The FCC is supposed to protect the interests of consumers - but instead it puts on a lame show of consumer protection a couple of times a year, and spends the rest of the time pushing anti-competitive policies fed to it by incumbents.
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

SuperWISP

Member

Has Larry Lessig been bought?

Larry Lessig writes:
President Obama should get Congress to shut down the FCC and similar vestigial regulators, which put stability and special interests above the public good. In their place, Congress should create something we could call the Innovation Environment Protection Agency (iEPA), charged with a simple founding mission: "minimal intervention to maximize innovation." The iEPA's core purpose would be to protect innovation from its two historical enemies­excessive government favors, and excessive private monopoly power.
But later in the same essay, Lessig advocates "network neutrality" regulation, which would prevent innovation (such as the innovative traffic management techniques which my own ISP uses to maintain quality of service while keeping prices reasonable) and force small, independent, and wireless ISPs out of business. This, in turn, would give telcos and cable companies monopoly or duopoly power in the broadband sphere.

One can only wonder at such an obvious contradiction. Mr. Lessig seems to be saying, "Don't regulate... unless I feel strongly about an issue and want you to. Or unless regulation is favored by one of the large corporate donors to my 'Center for the Internet and Society' at Stanford, such as Google." (*)

--Brett Glass

(*) Google has provided a great deal of support to Lessig's center at Stanford, including at least one lump sum donation of $2M.