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 :

Poll

Which group is more ethically challenged?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Matthew Wilsonhttps://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/3bxduw/why_was_riama_along_with_a_number_of_other_large/ here is a more complete acount of whats going on.07/03/2015 - 1:32am
Matthew Wilsonredit is on fire right now. most subreddits have been set to private.07/03/2015 - 1:24am
MattsworknameYou know andrew, those are actualy rock solid ideas, I woudl like those features a bunch ,especially with games that a cut scene heavly. looking at you kojima!07/03/2015 - 1:18am
Andrew EisenActually, "things I'd like to see become standard in video games" ain't a bad idea for one of my future YouTube videos.07/03/2015 - 1:05am
Andrew EisenYou know what I'd really like to see become standard? The ability to pause cutscenes. Rewind and skip (with "Are you sure?") would be nice too. Oh, and maybe display the duration of the cutscene when it's paused.07/03/2015 - 1:03am
Mattsworknameonly reason to do region locking now is to be dicks your consumer base. Granted, we see that ALOT these days07/03/2015 - 12:48am
MattsworknameI understand the concerns about the region locking thing, I just thing that if you buy a game legitimately, no matter where it's from or what langauge it's in, you should be allowed to play it. the argument about piracy was proven false years ago, the07/03/2015 - 12:47am
Matthew Wilsonhttp://www.theverge.com/culture/2015/7/2/8888243/reddit-subreddits-private-after-ama-victoria-taylor-fired bad optics by Reddit.07/03/2015 - 12:33am
Goth_SkunkI'm in full agreement on the subtitles issue. I also believe that every game should come with a single-player component, and be playable without an internet connection. Except MMOs.07/02/2015 - 10:51pm
TechnogeekRegion locking bans seem like something that'll be very difficult to pass into law. I'm fully on board with the subtitle requirement, though.07/02/2015 - 10:00pm
MattsworknameFor example, all games with any for form of spoken dialoge should be i subtitled, and region locking in any form should be illegal07/02/2015 - 9:03pm
MattsworknameDoes anyone feel that there should be a set standard for all games in terms of certain basic features. Ie subtitles, region lock, etc07/02/2015 - 9:01pm
MattsworknameSo, now that the Article stuff is over, I want to bring up another subject07/02/2015 - 9:01pm
PHX Corphttps://trustygem.wordpress.com/2015/07/02/windows-10-insider-preview-phase-3/ My Thoughts on Windows 10 Insider Preview07/02/2015 - 6:17pm
Matthew Wilsonhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?t=18&v=CbGmrySQLIg looks like Inafune is giving capcom the middle finger.07/02/2015 - 5:05pm
TechnogeekUnfortunately, the shoutbox moves fast enough that I can't find why I got that impression, so if was indeed erroneous I do apologize.07/02/2015 - 4:34pm
TechnogeekBut yeah, as far as my earlier comment re: you and the article, I did get the impression at some point that you felt there should have been some sort of reprecussions for the article's existence.07/02/2015 - 4:34pm
TechnogeekI got expletive-censored for posting something a few weeks back wherein I expressed my shock that I agreed with you about something, Skunk; so you're not the only one being hit with that stick.07/02/2015 - 4:31pm
Andrew EisenI know you don't. And you haven't recently so all's well.07/02/2015 - 4:25pm
Goth_SkunkI don't think I misrepresented anything.07/02/2015 - 4:24pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician