IPcentral Weblog
  The DACA Blog

Thursday, November 19, 2009

 
Is the FCC Becoming the Federal Cloud Commission?
(previous | next)
 

Federal Cloud CommissionHmmm... What am I missing? I cannot lay my finger on a single line in the Communications Act of 1934, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, or any statute in between that gives the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the authority to regulate cloud computing. And yet, like any good stickler for jurisdictional authority, my PFF colleague Barbara Esbin keeps bringing to my attention little FCC chirps here and there which suggest that the agency is slowly positioning itself to become the Federal Cloud Commission. For example, back in September, Barbara brought to my attention this passage in the Commission's recent Wireless Innovation and Investment Notice of Inquiry, (paragraph 60, pg. 21):

As other approaches, such as cloud computing, evolve, will established standards or de facto standards become more important to the applications development process? For example, can a dominant cloud computing position raise the same competitive issues that are now being discussed in the context of network neutrality? Will it be necessary to modify the existing balance between regulatory and market forces to promote further innovation in the development and deployment of new applications and services?

In my earlier essay about this, I noted that these questions should serve as a wake-up call for Google and other cloud-based providers who think that "neutrality" mandates will end at the infrastructure layer of the Net. As Berin Szoka and I argued in our paper on "high-tech mutually assured destruction," regulatory regimes grow but almost never contract. And I'm even less optimistic about the FCC limiting its regulatory aspirations after the latest thing Barbara Esbin brought to my attention.

Today, as part of the Commission's ongoing effort to develop a National Broadband Plan, the FCC released a request for information "on data portability and its relationship to broadband." (NBP Public Notice #21) "The Commission seeks tailored comment on broadband and portability of data and their relation to cloud computing, transparency, identity, and privacy," the notice says. Here was the second item on the list of things the Commission said it was investigating:

Cloud computing. When considering the portability of data, we also consider the processes through which data are moved. In this context, we seek comment on how to identify and understand cloud computing as a model for technology provisioning.
  1. The National Institute of Standards and Technology defines cloud computing as "a model for enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction." Does this definition accurately capture the concept of cloud computing?
  2. What types of cloud computing exist (e.g., public, hybrid, and internal) and what are the legal and regulatory implications of their use?
  3. Can present broadband network configurations handle a large-scale shift in bandwidth usage that a rapid adoption of cloud computing might cause?
  4. How does cloud computing affect the reliability, scalability, security, and sustainability of information and data?
  5. To what extent can the federal government leverage cloud solutions to improve intra-agency processes, intergovernmental coordination, and civic participation?
  6. What impact do developments in cloud computing have with respect to broadband deployment, adoption, and use?
  7. How can various parties leverage cloud computing to obtain economic or social efficiencies? Is it possible to quantify the efficiencies gained?
  8. To what extent are consumers protected by industry self-regulation (e.g., the Cloud Computing Manifesto), and to what extent might additional protections be needed?
  9. What specific privacy concerns are there with user data and cloud computing?
  10. What precautions should government agencies take to prevent disclosure of personal information when providing data?
  11. Is the use of cloud computing a net positive to the environment? Are there specific studies that quantify the environmental impact of cloud computing?
I suppose some might claim there's nothing wrong with the FCC looking into these issues, and that the agency's interest in cloud computing is entirely benign. But when it read all these questions about cloud computing in recent FCC notices, I can't help but thinking about the potential for regulatory creep. Eventually, when a regulatory agency asks enough questions -- especially the sort of questions bolded above -- it leads to more agency oversight. And more agency oversight typically leads to some sort of agency regulation.

Or perhaps I'm just being paranoid.

Regardless, at a minimum, would someone at least tell me where the FCC gets the authority to even ask these questions? Or do we live in such a Bold New World of progressive government that little encumbrances like statutory authority can be thrown to the wind? Years from now, some might look back and ask the question that Nobel Prize-winning economist Ronald Coase asked 50 years ago about the FCC and spectrum regulation: "How did the commission come to acquire this power?" But I'd like to know the answer to that question right now regarding the FCC's growing interest in cloud computing.

posted by Adam Thierer @ 8:18 PM | Communications , Net Neutrality , The FCC

Share |

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly

Comments

You're quite right, Adam --

Proponents of net neutrality regs want "neutrality for me, but not for thee."

People differ in their definitions of NN, but more or less everyone agrees that we should all have access to legal content as issued by the sender.

It's clear that search engines can and do affect the visibility of all kinds of content. Some will tell you "if it's not on Google, it may as well not exist."

If you truly believe network operators must be regulated because they could affect the free interchange of ideas and data, how can you _not_ believe that dominant providers of search and related services should be regulated, too?

Eric Schmidt said it pretty well in the Washington Post: "It is possible for the government to screw the Internet up, big-time."

It may be time to take a deep breath and think things through a wee bit more....

Posted by: Will Rodger at November 24, 2009 10:54 AM

Post a Comment:





 
Blog Main
RSS Feed  
Recent Posts
  EFF-PFF Amicus Brief in Schwarzenegger v. EMA Supreme Court Videogame Violence Case
New OECD Study Finds That Improved IPR Protections Benefit Developing Countries
Hubris, Cowardice, File-sharing, and TechDirt
iPhones, DRM, and Doom-Mongers
"Rogue Archivist" Carl Malamud On How to Fix Gov2.0
Coping with Information Overload: Thoughts on Hamlet's BlackBerry by William Powers
How Many Times Has Michael "Dr. Doom" Copps Forecast an Internet Apocalypse?
Google / Verizon Proposal May Be Important Compromise, But Regulatory Trajectory Concerns Many
Two Schools of Internet Pessimism
GAO: Wireless Prices Plummeting; Public Knowledge: We Must Regulate!
Archives by Month
  September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
  - (see all)
Archives by Topic
  - A La Carte
- Add category
- Advertising & Marketing
- Antitrust & Competition Policy
- Appleplectics
- Books & Book Reviews
- Broadband
- Cable
- Campaign Finance Law
- Capitalism
- Capitol Hill
- China
- Commons
- Communications
- Copyright
- Cutting the Video Cord
- Cyber-Security
- DACA
- Digital Americas
- Digital Europe
- Digital Europe 2006
- Digital TV
- E-commerce
- e-Government & Transparency
- Economics
- Education
- Electricity
- Energy
- Events
- Exaflood
- Free Speech
- Gambling
- General
- Generic Rant
- Global Innovation
- Googlephobia
- Googlephobia
- Human Capital
- Innovation
- Intermediary Deputization & Section 230
- Internet
- Internet Governance
- Internet TV
- Interoperability
- IP
- Local Franchising
- Mass Media
- Media Regulation
- Monetary Policy
- Municipal Ownership
- Net Neutrality
- Neutrality
- Non-PFF Podcasts
- Ongoing Series
- Online Safety & Parental Controls
- Open Source
- PFF
- PFF Podcasts
- Philosophy / Cyber-Libertarianism
- Privacy
- Privacy Solutions
- Regulation
- Search
- Security
- Software
- Space
- Spectrum
- Sports
- State Policy
- Supreme Court
- Taxes
- The FCC
- The FTC
- The News Frontier
- Think Tanks
- Trade
- Trademark
- Universal Service
- Video Games & Virtual Worlds
- VoIP
- What We're Reading
- Wireless
- Wireline
Archives by Author
PFF Blogosphere Archives
We welcome comments by email - look for a link to the author's email address in the byline of each post. Please let us know if we may publish your remarks.
 










The Progress & Freedom Foundation