On too many
occasions, I have tried to set the record straight in the face of untruths in
telecom policy debates that become all too real, or at least accepted as conventional
wisdom. For years I dutifully prepared a
rebuttal to just about every Wall Street
Journal editorial, or op ed on telecommunications.
Of course
not one rebuttal ever made its way to print, either in the original publisher,
or elsewhere. Being an independent,
unsponsored researcher, I don’t have a built in constituency or publicist.
I took
issue with this statement, based on the fact that the FCC has a longstanding
and consistent history of engaging in regulatory restrain by streamlining and
forbearing from regulation when sustainable competition exists:
Just like
the Wall Street Journal, the listserv
Moderator did not publish my response.
Doesn't the FCC have a record of using Sec. 160 to streamline and even forbear regulation?
Generally I
have given up on this never-ending endeavor. I want this blog and my academic
work to orient toward the future. But
today I have to make an exception.
A prominent
listserv covered AT&T’s campaign to convince the FCC not to reclassify
Internet access as a telecommunications service, subject to Title II
regulation. See http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/att-claims-common-carrier-rules-would-ruin-the-whole-internet/. For reasons other than AT&T’s, I
conditionally support opposition to this reclassification. However I did attempt to refute one of the
premises in the AT&T campaign.
On this
prominent list serve, one of AT&T rationales generated a supporting comment. AT&T asserts that the FCC has a congenital
inability to use a light regulatory touch should it reclassify ISPs and reacquire
legal authority to regulate.
A prominent
academic, with a longstanding record favoring deregulation, made the following
assertion:
Everyone who is supporting Title II
seems to believe that the FCC will use only light touch regulation (never
actually seen that, have you?) and it won't be like regulating the Bell
System. I personally think that is just
what it is going to turn into; that's where the logic of regulation takes you:
price, entry, exit, quality regulation.
To pretend that this time, the FCC will be much lighter seems farcical.
I
am not in the camp that believes Title II regulation should apply to ISPs.
However, [the list serve
Moderator and the author of the above assertion] should give the FCC credit for
using a provision in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Sec. 160) to forbear
and streamline Title II regulation. When
it has empirical evidence that facilities-based competition exists, the
Commission has reduced regulation. Examples
include inter-exchange services, such as long distance, and many local exchange
services.
The
facts do not support the premise that the FCC has a congenital inability to use
a light regulatory touch---ever.
Call me crazy, but I saw the need to prevent yet another
instance of unintentional, or intentional misreading of the facts. From my perspective, I see ample evidence
that the FCC can forebear and streamline regulation.
Doesn't the FCC have a record of using Sec. 160 to streamline and even forbear regulation?
I am
disappointed that even at the list serve level, an attempt at respectfully
challenging an assertion of the facts didn't get distributed for reasons that
don’t pass the smell test.
No comments:
Post a Comment