When the FCC kicked-off its net neutrality proceeding in 2009, it labeled the proceeding “Preserving the Open Internet.” But to “preserve” means to “make lasting” or “maintain” rather than “change,” and that’s what many public interest advocates really want to do – change the way the Internet currently operates. For them at least, renaming “change” as “preservation” is classic doublespeak designed to disguise the real intent of net neutrality regulation. Read the rest of this entry »
Posts Tagged ‘ FCC ’
Who Is Responsible for Slow Broadband Deployment to Rural Consumers?
C-3PO: “Curse my metal body, I wasn’t fast enough, it’s all my fault!” Star Wars (1977).
In its Sixth Broadband Deployment Report (“Sixth Report”), the FCC concludes that “broadband deployment to all Americans is not reasonable and timely.” (Sixth Report at para. 2 (emphasis in original).) However, the FCC doesn’t attempt to answer the question titling this blog post. To the contrary, the Sixth Report “emphasize[s] that [its] conclusion in no way diminishes the achievements industry has made deploying better and faster forms of broadband to most Americans, nor the Commission’s past efforts to foster broadband deployment.” (Report at para. 6.) The FCC can say that, but that doesn’t make it true. Somebody’s always at fault.
In this case, it’s the FCC that must shoulder the blame – because it hasn’t acted in a timely manner in its efforts to reform the Universal Service Fund. And Universal Service Funding (or some other method of subsidy) is the only way to achieve universal broadband service (the goal articulated by the FCC in the Sixth Report.) (See my earlier post on the Sixth Report here.) Efforts to fundamentally reform the Universal Service Fund have been ongoing for years, but have failed in the face of intense lobbying by rural carriers that benefit disproportionately from the status quo. The Report’s finding that the status quo isn’t good enough may finally give the FCC the political cover it feels is necessary to take responsibility for the Universal Service Fund and enact real reform. Otherwise, there’s little point in the Sixth Report’s conclusion regarding the “reasonable and timely” deployment of broadband to consumers that cannot be economically served by industry.
What Is Reasonable and Timely Deployment of Broadband?
Milton Waddams: “I was told that I could listen to the radio at a reasonable volume from nine to eleven, I told Bill that if Sandra is going to listen to her headphones while she’s filing then I should be able to listen to the radio while I’m collating so I don’t see why I should have to turn down the radio because I enjoy listening at a reasonable volume from nine to eleven.” Office Space (1999).
Section 706 of the Communications Act requires the FCC to annually “determine whether advanced telecommunications capability [i.e., broadband] is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.” In its last 5 reports, the FCC has concluded that broadband was being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion. Now, in its Sixth Broadband Deployment Report (“Sixth Report”), the FCC has concluded that “broadband deployment to all Americans is not reasonable and timely.” (Sixth Report at para. 2 (emphasis in original).) Read the rest of this entry »
What’s Good for the Cable Goose Isn’t Good for the Wireless Gander
For the first time in many years, the FCC’s annual “CMRS” competition report (now called the “mobile” competition report) does not find that the wireless marketplace is “effectively competitive.” At today’s FCC meeting, Wireless Bureau Chief Ruth Milkman said the Bureau felt it should analyze the data without reaching a conclusion, but didn’t say why the Bureau felt that way. Unfortunately, I fear the real answer is that the FCC wants to engage in heavy-handed regulation of the wireless industry and doesn’t want a finding of “effective competition” to get in the way. Read the rest of this entry »
TAGS:
competition FCC wireless
The National Broadband Plan: Automatic Roaming and the “In-Market Exception” – Part II
I recently wrote about the policy implications of eliminating the in-market exception to the automatic roaming rule. This post highlights some legal issues related to requiring service providers to open their networks to competitors “in-market.” Read the rest of this entry »