IPcentral Weblog
  The DACA Blog

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

 
Reviving Open Access
(previous | next)
 

The Wall Street Journal reports that "FCC staff also are studying whether to revive 'open access' rules, which would require Internet providers to lease their networks to rivals at government-regulated prices." "Revive" is an interesting choice of words, as it implies that such rules were once alive, but are presently dead, or at least comatose. But in the case of cable Internet service providers, it is simply wrong. Cable modem service, a term the FCC invented for high-speed Internet over cable service, has never been subjected by the FCC to "open access" or, more precisely, common carrier regulation. Not once; not ever.

Scott Cleland wrote a nice little piece on the tendency of net neutrality advocates to re-write Internet history so that the steady movement away from government ownership and control, including economic regulation, during the Clinton Administration is air-brushed out of history. My point is less global, but no less important. The terms, conditions and prices of cable modem service at both the retail and wholesale level have never been subject to regulation.

Instead, the FCC made the conscious decision to classify the service not as a highly regulated common carrier telecommunications service, but rather as a then-unregulated "information service." This decision was made for the purpose of encouraging broadband deployment and permitting such Internet services to be provided in a minimally-regulated environment, and it was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Brand X case. And, yes, the FCC launched a companion rule-making to consider whether to impose any special requirements on this information service pursuant to its Title I "ancillary jurisdiction. But it has never acted on that proposal. Thus, there is no rate-regulated leasing of cable modem lines for regulators to revive.

But I digress. The real story is that the FCC, for the first time, is seriously considering imposing common carrier-like economic regulation on cable Internet providers, in the context of its charge from Congress to develop a "National Broadband Plan" to increase broadband deployment. Setting that irony aside for the moment, we can, and will, debate the merits and drawbacks of the open access issue for some time to come (and rest assured, it will feel like Groundhog Day for many of us). But let's not start the debate from the false premise that we are just returning to the good old days of yore.

posted by Barbara Esbin @ 5:36 PM | Cable , Net Neutrality , Neutrality , The FCC

Share |

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly

Comments

Definitely agree. I think if the good outweighs the bad, it'll be the best choice. Open access should be the way to go.

Posted by: Betty @ Wholesale Purses at March 17, 2011 10:52 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