Washington Times Editorial Slams FCC

December 3, 2010 -

A Washington Times editorial slams FCC chairman Julius Genachowski's plan to introduce and vote on net neutrality rules, instead preferring market solutions to deal with the problems of network congestion, prioritizing content, and more. The editorial is a bit odd considering all the concessions the FCC has given cable operators already.

The main thrust of the article is that the FCC is trying to expand its regulatory power into a sector that congress has had a hands-off policy on for over a decade. Sample:

"It's not clear why the FCC thinks it needs to intervene in a situation with obvious market solutions. Companies that impose draconian tolls or block services will lose customers. Existing laws already offer a number of protections against anti-competitive behavior, but it's not clear under what law Mr. Genachowski thinks he can stick his nose into the businesses that comprise the Internet. The FCC regulates broadcast television and radio because the government granted each station exclusive access to a slice of the airwaves. Likewise when Ma Bell accepted a monopoly deal from Uncle Sam, it came with regulatory strings attached.

No such rationale applies online, especially because bipartisan majorities in Congress have insisted on maintaining a hands-off policy. A federal appeals court confirmed this in April by striking down the FCC's last attempt in this arena. "That was sort of like the quarterback being sacked for a 20-yard loss," FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell told The Washington Times. "And now the team is about to run the exact same play. ... In order for the FCC to do this, it needs for Congress to give it explicit statutory authority to do so."

Read the whole thing here.

[Commentary: I'm trying to figure out who supports this new proposal beyond cable operators and wireless companies..]


Comments

Re: Washington Times Editorial Slams FCC

A major failing is that we let companies like Comcast and AT&T get into other areas. AT&T was allowed to move beyond phone and into TV and internet. Comcast was allowed to become far more than just a cable operator.

And this is why standing back and doing nothing is so damn insidious: Comcast wants to force their TV services upon you with a stranglehold on your internet service because they control both.

This should never have been allowed to happen. Comcast should have never been allowed to be anything more than a cable company. AT&T should have never been allowed to be anything more than a phone company.

Re: Washington Times Editorial Slams FCC

"Companies that impose draconian tolls or block services will lose customers."

I guess that could theoretically happen, if ISPs weren't regional monopolies.  In a lot of the country, there pretty much is no competition when it comes to internet service.  And the ISPs know it.

Re: Washington Times Editorial Slams FCC

Instead of saddling us with this horrible framework why not just take a laisse faire attitude and let things continue as they have for the last two decades until the ISPs do something worth rule making? It seems to me more good would be done by staying silent and letting the providers decide for themselves what will cross the line and risk the wrath of regulation.

All in all a VERY poor showing by Genachowski.

Re: Washington Times Editorial Slams FCC

Uh...  Heard of Comcast?

Re: Washington Times Editorial Slams FCC

Instead, we just allow a government agency to act completely outside of it's legal purview with no recourse whatsoever on such activity?

FCC's third way is exactly that.  They don't have the authority to do such a thing.  They've even admitted to it.

Imagine if the CIA assassinated a foreign diplomat in the United States that everyone knew paid for terrorist activities.  The act itself would be considered a good thing in the "big picture," sure, but would any of you who are chomping at the bit for FCC regulations on the internet be okay with such?  No, you wouldn't.  You'd freak out that the CIA is overstepping it's boundaries, just as I would.  So, tell me - why is it okay for one government organization to break the law but not all of them?

Oh, wait, I know the answer - you're convinced that corporations would be punished by such, and that makes anything and everything okay in your opinion.

---

With the first link, the chain is forged.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: Washington Times Editorial Slams FCC

Interesting... even if you register it will not let you comment.....

 

Oh well, it was really just my standard 'free market solutions require competition.  The broadband market is an effectively monopoly (or oligopoly depending on the region) and thus smith's invisible hand fails to produce solutions.

Re: Washington Times Editorial Slams FCC

Agreed, Neeneko.

For many Americans there is no "free market". And for the rest of us, the "free market" is often only one competitor who is working in collusion with the other.

Free market solutions my arse.

Re: Washington Times Editorial Slams FCC

I know I have ranted before.. but I still maintain.. the version of NN I would like to see would just return the requirement that line owners lease out their lines to any ISP.... I keep thinking back to the wonderful landscape of competition DSL had before that was lifted and how the market shrank to monopolies overnight afterwards..... return that and require cable companies to play by the same rules and I would be a very happy camper.

I think if we had that, THEN the free market would be able to do its thing.

Re: Washington Times Editorial Slams FCC

I worked for an ISP that used Qwest's lines, and I'll tell you right now that allowing other businesses to use their cable is not enough to allow fair competition.

Qwest is profiting on the line whether they're profiting on the service or not; hence, they can ALWAYS undercut competitors on the service end.

Add to that that every time there's a problem with the line they'll blame it on the ISP and try to convince the user to switch over to their service.

Besides that, when they were adding ADSL in new markets, they weren't required to share THAT line with other ISP's.  That could be fixed by bringing back line-sharing requirements, but those other two problems couldn't.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Papa MidnightIt's not bad so far, but I am honestly not sure what to make of it (or where it's going for that matter)07/28/2014 - 9:44pm
Matthew Wilsonis it any good?07/28/2014 - 9:36pm
Papa Midnight"Love Child" on HBO -- anyone else watching this?07/28/2014 - 9:27pm
MaskedPixelanteNah, I'm fine purple monkey dishwasher.07/28/2014 - 4:05pm
Sleaker@MP - I hope you didn't suffer a loss of your mental faculties attempting that.07/28/2014 - 3:48pm
MaskedPixelanteOK, so my brief research looking at GameFAQs forums (protip, don't do that if you wish to keep your sanity intact.), the 3DS doesn't have the power to run anything more powerful than the NES/GBC/GG AND run the 3DS system in the background.07/28/2014 - 11:01am
ZenMatthew, the 3DS already has GBA games in the form of the ambassador tittles. And I an just as curious about them not releasing them on there like they did the NES ones. I do like them on the Wii U as well, but seems weird. And where are the N64 games?07/28/2014 - 10:40am
james_fudgeNo. They already cut the price. Unless they release a new version that has a higher price point.07/28/2014 - 10:19am
E. Zachary KnightMatthew, It most likely is. The question is whether Nintendo wants to do it.07/28/2014 - 10:12am
Matthew WilsonI am sure the 3ds im more then powerful enough to emulate a GBA game.07/28/2014 - 9:54am
Sleaker@IanC - while the processor is effectively the same or very similar, the issue is how they setup the peripheral hardware. It would probably require creating some kind of emulation for the 3DS to handle interfacing with the audio and input methods for GBA07/28/2014 - 9:30am
Sleaker@EZK - hmmm, that makes sense. I could have sworn I had played GB/GBC games on it too though (emud of course)07/28/2014 - 9:23am
E. Zachary KnightSleaker, the DS has a built in GBA chipset in the system. That is why it played GBA games. The GBA had a seperate chipset for GB and GBColor games. The DS did not have that GB/GBC chipset and that is why the DS could not play GB and GBC games.07/28/2014 - 7:25am
IanCI dont think Nintendo ever gave reason why GBA games a reason why GBA games aren't on the 3DS eshop. The 3DS uses chips that are backwards compatable with the GBA ob GBA processor, after all.07/28/2014 - 6:46am
Sleakerhmmm that's odd I could play GBA games natively in my original DS.07/28/2014 - 1:39am
Matthew Wilsonbasically "we do not want to put these games on a system more then 10 people own" just joking07/27/2014 - 8:13pm
MaskedPixelanteSomething, something, the 3DS can't properly emulate GBA games and it was a massive struggle to get the ambassador games running properly.07/27/2014 - 8:06pm
Andrew EisenIdeally, you'd be able to play such games on either platform but until that time, I think Nintendo's using the exclusivity in an attempt to further drive Wii U sales.07/27/2014 - 7:21pm
Matthew WilsonI am kind of surprised games like battle network are not out on the 3ds.07/27/2014 - 7:01pm
Andrew EisenWell, Mega Man 1 - 4, X and X2 are already on there and the first Battle Network is due out July 31st.07/27/2014 - 6:16pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician