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.
prh99Maybe it's time to rethink your strategy if your enemy doesn't have to make stuff up.02/01/2015 - 5:01am
prh99Also if you don't like someone, harassment and scandals will only get them more attention. Zoe Quinn would probably not be as well known if not for various harassers.02/01/2015 - 5:00am
prh99Personally, I just clicked the three vertical dots the first YouTube recommended one, haven't seen one since. Too bad I can't get rid of Pewdiepie video recommendations that easily.02/01/2015 - 3:19am
prh99Just don't watch the videos, who cares what she does or doesn't do. If her audience likes it so be, if they think she's doing something she shouldn't they'll stop watching.02/01/2015 - 3:14am
WonderkarpAndrew Yoon Died http://www.gamerevolution.com/news/rip-andrew-yoon-3096901/31/2015 - 10:26pm
Matthew Wilson@ea so much happened this week its not funny. fcc broadband, Nintendo, sega, and sevral other big stories. was not a slow week lol01/31/2015 - 8:50pm
Andrew EisenWasn't on the list but we can certainly talk about it.01/31/2015 - 8:45pm
Matthew WilsonI know its not directly related to games, but are you going to tak about the fcc raising the definition of broadband to 25/3?01/31/2015 - 8:33pm
Wonderkarpwell we had to christen it some way01/31/2015 - 7:13pm
Andrew EisenThank goodness the Shout box now goes back 100 shouts, eh folks?01/31/2015 - 7:10pm
Wonderkarpyouve said youre stuff. I gave you a point on one thing.01/31/2015 - 7:04pm
Andrew EisenNo, they're facts. Not beliefs. Not opinions. Facts. Do I need to list them all for you again? I'm happy to oblige.01/31/2015 - 7:02pm
Andrew EisenAnd I have seen no evidence (and would find it very hard to believe) that her fans and funders, even the most radical, would be the ones perpetuating that nonsense.01/31/2015 - 7:01pm
Wonderkarpabout as right as Glenn Beck is about the gays, man. Its all your beliefs and opinions.01/31/2015 - 7:01pm
Andrew EisenI didn't say you did. And this talking head is still right about everything he's said so far.01/31/2015 - 6:58pm
Andrew EisenAlso, considering the number of non profits that merchandise, I'm going to guess you're wrong on that one too but I don't really know as it's not my area of expertise.01/31/2015 - 6:58pm
WonderkarpYou can keep saying that all you want. Its just a talking head, man. there's all the proof in the pudding. I never said she was trying to take away games, or get rid of male protagonists, or any of the BS thats perpetraited by her more radicalfans/funders01/31/2015 - 6:56pm
Andrew EisenNo, as I've spelled out throughout this discussion, you're wrong.01/31/2015 - 6:53pm
Wonderkarpok. that one I am wrong. I'll give you that one. That was one I didnt research properly. BUT I'm right on the others.01/31/2015 - 6:53pm
Andrew EisenFact: It makes no difference whether she recorded the footage or not. Fact: yes she does have a Section 107 'fair use' disclaimer at the end of every video and in the video description.01/31/2015 - 6:47pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician