By Sonia Arrison TechNewsWorld Part of the ECT News Network
03/10/04 8:22 AM PT
The story of the FCC's resistance to the rule of law is a chronicle of bureaucratic stubbornness. Congress intended for the 1996 Telecom Act to create a coherent national policy, but the FCC interpreted this as the freedom to allow the states to balkanize U.S. telecommunications into 51 different regulatory fiefdoms.
How Much is 'Free' Costing You? Learn how DaveRamsey.com saw a 567% uplift in ROI with Omniture. This complimentary guide and webinar cover the most important factors in selecting an analytics solution. Download Now.
Last week, a U.S. court invalidated key telecommunications regulations created by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This is the third time the Commission's rules have been struck down, making it imperative that the Bush Administration act to fix the nation's telecommunications mess.
In its ruling, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit showed incredulity and disdain that in eight years, the FCC still hasn't been able to properly interpret telecom law. It ordered the Commission to reverse its decision to delegate its regulatory responsibilities to the states and scrapped the FCC's rules requiring local phone companies to share their equipment with competitors at government-set rates, a policy known by the ungainly name of "unbundling."
The courts recognize that it makes no sense to treat local phone companies as if they are still the Ma Bell monopoly of yesteryear. After all, phone companies are no strangers to competition, fighting tooth and nail with cable, wireless and Internet telephony for market share in communications service. Consumers see this every day; there is an astonishing array of communications choices, from cell phones and instant messaging to BlackBerry and voice-over-the-Internet phone calls.
Giving Credence to Industry Leaders
In issuing their ruling, the judges gave credence to what dozens of industry leaders, economists and telecom experts already acknowledge: that the FCC's unbundling policy generates damage throughout the U.S. economy. It's easy to see why this is the case.
Imagine a regulation forcing Southwest Airlines to let JetBlue sell tickets on Southwest's new air routes. Suppose, furthermore, that the government mandates Southwest give away its seats to JetBlue at a discount set by regulators. The predictable result in aviation, under this fanciful scheme, would be no new flights. The predictable result of unbundling in the IT industry, of course, is the active discouragement of investment in new communications products and services.
FCC policies have created uncertainty and inflexibility, keeping the local phone companies starved for capital and undermining the incentive of competitors to raise money to build facilities of their own. Partly as a result of this perverse regulation, communications companies and equipment providers of all sorts have been walloped with about US$2 trillion in stock losses in the last few years.
Chronicle of Bureaucracy
The story of the FCC's resistance to the rule of law is a chronicle of bureaucratic stubbornness. Last February, the FCC appeared ready to simplify its rules, a step many were hailing as the beginning of the high-speed Internet era and rational regulation of telephone services. American industry awaited these new rules with all the anticipation of a drowning man in need of a life preserver.
Instead, the Commission threw out the equivalent of the proverbial lead weight. Rather than simplifying regulations, the FCC passed the buck to the states, turning over much of its regulatory authority to Public Utilities Commissions in every state and the District of Columbia.
Congress intended for the 1996 Telecom Act to create a coherent national policy, but the FCC interpreted this as the freedom to allow the states to balkanize U.S. telecommunications into 51 different regulatory fiefdoms.
Inability To Set Rational Policy
And what about the court order that the FCC had to set "clear limits" on its unbundling policy of forcing companies to share their equipment at below-market rates? Once again, the FCC took a clear mandate as freedom to do the exact opposite. The predictable result was yet another judicial dressing-down last week.
Given the FCC's current inability to set rational policies for a healthy telecommunications sector, the responsibility for kick-starting real reform now lies with the Bush Administration. FCC Chairman Michael Powell tried to deliver reasonable telecom rules last February, but he was hamstrung by White House-appointed Commissioner Kevin Martin.
The administration must realize that the time has come to clean house. The White House should make its pro-broadband, smaller-government views clear to commissioner Martin so that the FCC can move to create rules that favor a thriving telecommunications landscape.
Technology and Religion: An Interview with the Episcopal Church's Tom Ferguson March 09, 2004
"Religion is not embracing the information revolution; it's reaping what it sowed hundreds of years ago," Tom Ferguson, associate deputy of interfaith relations for the Episcopal Church, told TechNewsWorld. "Religion created the information revolution that has been ongoing."
Related Stories
Feds Eye Price-Fixing Allegations Against RAM Makers February 27, 2004
"There are a number of federal and state laws that govern the way companies price their products," Ray Hartwell, an attorney with the Washington D.C. office of Hunton & Williams, LLP, told TechNewsWorld. "Federal and state antitrust statutes make it unlawful for competitors to agree on what they'll charge."
FTC Issues Advisory To Lock Down Spam Relays January 30, 2004
While he said it is still too soon to tell how many organizations are at issue because the FTC is still looking up server owners, FTC Internet lab director Don Blumenthal told TechNewsWorld that the agency has found more than 1 million IP numbers suspected as open proxies or relays -- all of which, in theory, could be used by spammers.
Identity Theft Online: Debunking the Myths January 17, 2004
The popular view is that expanded use of the Internet by consumers is the chief cause of growing crime figures. But James Van Dyke, a research analyst for Javelin Strategy, told TechNewsWorld that using the Internet for banking and paying bills actually reduces the threat of identity theft and banking fraud.
Feds Obtain Restraining Order Against Super Spammers November 06, 2003
According to Michael Paris, president of Lockdown, a network security firm in Dover, New Hampshire, D Squared capitalized on ignorance about the Messenger Service. "They advertised a solution to a problem they created," he told TechNewsWorld.
FTC Commissioner on the Future of E-Commerce October 02, 2003
In addition to taking action against companies suspected of engaging in unfair business practices, the FTC has worked to shape Internet policy in a range of areas, including online disputes and resolutions, Internet-based fraud and privacy concerns.
Related News Alerts
More by Sonia Arrison
How to Solve the Net Neutrality Issue October 28, 2009
Regulation by the U.S. government is not the way to keep the Internet neutral. A better approach would be self-regulation. Now is the time for ISPs to support an independent, private body to monitor neutrality issues and forestall the possibility of the FCC "managing competition" on the Internet.
FCC's Genachowski Not Neutral on New Net Rules September 30, 2009
The proponents of Net neutrality say it's necessary for a free and open Internet, but history doesn't support that argument. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, for example, was supposed to bolster competition. Instead, by compelling companies to share their infrastructures, it reduced incentives for improvement. In the long run, it failed.
What Has President Obama Done for Silicon Valley? August 28, 2009
President Obama's appointments of Silicon Valley outsiders were only the first indications that his administration would be less than friendly to the high-tech industry, despite campaign promises. Since then, it has shown an inclination toward tight regulatory practices and away from transparency.