IPcentral Weblog
  The DACA Blog

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Camel Puts Nose under Tent with FCC "Wireless Model" for Internet Regulation
(previous | next)

Julius Genachowski claims his "Third Way" approach to taking over the Internet looks a lot like the benign "wireless model" of regulation.

If it were true, that would be a good thing.

According to Genachowski:

In its approach to wireless communications, Congress mandated that the FCC subject wireless communications to the same Title II provisions generally applicable to telecommunications services while also directing that the FCC consider forbearing from the application of many of these provisions to the wireless marketplace. The Commission did significantly forbear, and the telecommunications industry has repeatedly and resoundingly lauded this approach as well-suited to an emerging technology and welcoming to investment and innovation. In short, the proposed approach is already tried and true.
Presumably, the "wireless model," if applied to the Internet, would spur growth and innovation. But I have a question. In the FCC's NOI, how does the wireless model of "light regulation" apply to, er, the wireless model?

I haven't quite figured out the circularity of that one yet.

Oh, well. Maybe I shouldn't waste my time trying. It seems more apparent than ever that for wireless and wireline broadband service it's not really about regulating "downward" - i.e., deregulating, as is the hallmark of the "wireless model" - but instead, regulating "upward," thus adding regulation.

No doubt before 1993 the wireless market was a confusing mess. Says Verizon:

For many years, a bifurcated federal-state regulatory system similar to telephone utility regulation existed for wireless services. Congress put an end to that system in 1993 when it preempted state regulation of wireless entry and rates, establishing a uniform federal regulatory policy for the competitive wireless industry.
As touched on by Chairman Genachowski, after 1993 the lack of common carrier regulation - which could have been applied by the FCC - also proved integral toward building the wireless marketplace. A November 2009 GAO Report confirms this, noting:
...[H]aving determined that exempting carriers from certain regulations will promote competition, FCC has used its authority under the 1993 Act to exempt wireless carriers from some rules that apply to other communications common carriers. For example, in 1994, FCC exempted wireless carriers from rate regulations that apply to other common carriers. FCC has stated that promoting competition was a principal goal of the 1993 Act under which Congress established the regulatory framework for wireless phone service oversight. As required by the 1993 Act, in exempting wireless phone service carriers from regulations in order to promote competition, as FCC has done, FCC must determine that such exemption is in the public interest and that the regulations are not necessary for the protection of consumers.
But the "Third Way" actually goes in the other direction.

Not only does the newly proposed regulatory regime lack specific congressional authority, the only way the agency can achieve its purposes (whatever they are) is through the addition of regulation - exactly opposite of the "wireless model." First, the Commission must separate the transmission element of broadband from info services - the two together being previously unregulated. Then, as the Chairman says, it can invoke "the few provisions necessary to achieve [the FCC's] limited but essential goals" to keep the Internet open.

Invoke a few provisions? That doesn't sound like "wireless model" deregulation. But then, all must know that the "Third Way" isn't about deregulation anyway. Rather, it's about getting the camel's nose under the regulatory tent, thereby enabling broad Internet regulation when the agency deems it's necessary.

Ever share space with a camel before? That smelly, expectorating beast can make even the nicest tent a place in which no one wants to rest. Imagine what that'll do to Internet growth and innovation?

posted by Mike Wendy @ 3:08 PM | Broadband , Capitol Hill , Communications , Innovation , Internet , Net Neutrality , Regulation , Spectrum , The FCC , Wireless , Wireline

Share |

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(2)


Excellent blog! Do you have any suggestions for aspiring writers? I'm hoping to start my own blog soon but I'm a little lost on everything. Would you propose starting with a free platform like WordPress or go for a paid option? There are so many choices out there that I'm completely confused .. Any ideas? Cheers!

Posted by: test at March 17, 2013 6:55 AM

This awesome weblog is obviously interesting as well as diverting. I have discovered a bunch of fascinating things from it. I would love to come back more than and more than once more. Cheers!

Posted by: ????? at June 13, 2013 8:54 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
- 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 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