Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Cristóbal Palmer <cristobalpalmer AT gmail.com>]

On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Matt Drew <matt.drew AT gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Why would the FCC ever have your interests at heart?

Quoting fcc.gov:

"The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United
States government agency. The FCC was established by the
Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate
and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite
and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District
of Columbia, and U.S. possessions."

And quoting www.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf (1934 act which created
the FCC with the 1996 amendments):

"        For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce
in communication by wire and
radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people
of the United States, without
discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin,
or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-
wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with
adequate facilities at reasonable
charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of
promoting safety of life and
property through the use of wire and radio communication, and for the
purpose of securing a more
effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority
heretofore granted by law to several
agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to
interstate and foreign commerce in wire
and radio communication, there is hereby created a commission to be
known as the ''Federal
Communications Commission,'' which shall be constituted as hereinafter
provided, and which shall
execute and enforce the provisions of this Act."

Now we can argue about whether we're slipping backwards or forwards in
terms of meeting that end of making available a wire and radio
communications network to all our people, but that's the reason it was
created. So yes, they should have my interests at heart if my
interests are served by having a cheap network accessible by all
(which they are).

> They are beset
> by well-paid lobbyists from the very companies you describe.  Indeed,
> our entire system of last-mile communications has a long history of
> government-granted monopolies and controls that have stifled
> competition and artificially maintained high prices.

There is also a long history of the poor and rural citizens of this
country being under-served by industry, and of only getting service
(electricity, communications) when our government stepped up to
provide services. I suggest the following book:

Fischer, Claude S. "America Calling: A Social History of the Telephone to 
1940"

> You talk to your representatives about Time Warner's prices?  Why is
> that?

Because they are and should be regulated. Look: I think we may be
talking past each other because you seem to think I want /more/
regulation, and I seem to think you want /less/. I'm sure it's more
complicated than that. I just want our current regulatory agencies to
a do a decent job. There's no question but that agencies were abused
and underfunded under the Bush administration, and that Bush people
took a dim view of regulation as a tool to benefit the American
public. How far has that gotten us? That got us disasters at the
Office of Surface Mining, the FDA, the EPA, NASA, ridiculous
headline-grabbing fines from the FCC over obscenity.... Abandoning our
regulatory infrastructure and agencies to ideologues and incompetents
is not the answer. Drowning emerging tech industries in law is not the
answer either. What I want is competent people at all levels of
government who are interested in policy based on evidence, government
based on science. Science!

So let's turn this around: what do you think are appropriate levels of
oversight for last-mile wire communications? For middle mile? What
role should the government have in communications infrastructure
upgrades? What I'm worried about very specifically is Internet access.
Who has access? Who doesn't? How much do they pay? What kind of
connection do they get? Tell me please how you think we'll get the
best possible answers to those questions. If you give me a hand-wavy
free market answer, I'm going to laugh and abandon hope for a
reasonable dialogue here.

> The only major area where
> there is intrusion and problems is the area where regulatory capture
> has created government-enforced monopolies and abusive systems - the
> last mile telecommunications providers.  And even there, customer
> lash-back has corrected the few instances where internet providers
> tried to throttle or control their customer's traffic.

Again, it is wildly inefficient and not in the public interest to have
more than one set of last mile cables, and if those cables are laid
down by completely private investment with no public funds, rights of
way, etc. etc. then we don't have a legal leg for regulation and
oversight, but the fact of the matter is that the current incumbents
/did/ get a lot of government support to build their existing
networks, so it /does/ make sense that they would be regulated. You
seem to be somehow suggesting that if we said tomorrow that Internet
Service as provided by cable, telephone, and wireless companies cannot
be regulated by the FCC, we'd see sudden and dramatic investment in
infrastructure that would benefit consumers. Please tell me that's not
what you're suggesting, because let's ask for a second: who would pay
for that dramatic investment of capital? Who has the incentive?
Foreign companies? What happens if 60% of our Internet infrastructure
ends up owned and managed by a foreign entity with no oversight?

> One way we *know* leads to openness, low prices, and expanding service
> that actively works against anti-customer controls.  The other way we
> *know* leads to abusive corporations that jack up prices and use
> government rules to stifle and crush competition.

Please tell me what these two ways are. I'm confused.

Lastly, here's the problem with giving up on talking to our
legislators and regulators about what we think they should do: TWC
won't give up. If you write off government as useless and in the way,
TWC and other incumbents will cheer, because in taking your ball and
going home, they've won the game by default. We need intelligent,
engaged people talking to their legislators and regulators, and as
much as I would like to flatter myself, I know I'm nowhere near as
effective as a registered lobbyist who shows up every day at the
capitol, BUT if there are enough of us speaking up, our interests can
still win out, especially because we have logic and science on our
side. Please, please don't give up on our government. Large corporate
interests win when we are hopeless and apathetic, and they win at our
expense.

Cheers,
-- 
Cristóbal M. Palmer
ibiblio.org systems
cdla.unc.edu research assistant