Internet

FCC Paves the Way For More Wireless Regulation

|

As expected, yesterday's FCC report on the state of wireless competition declined to label the industry competitive. It does not go so far as to explicitly label the industry uncompetitive; instead it avoids making an explicit call. Some reports are calling this a "neutral stance." But given the contrast with the industry's 2008 report, which explicitly labeled the industry "effectively competitive," the agency's decision to avoid labeling the industry competitive constitutes a strong suggestion—and probably an implicit judgment—that it's not.

Why the change? In a statement about the report, Commissioner Genachowski said it's an effort to avoid making a "simplistic" yes or no conclusion. But it seems fairly clear that it's intended to pave the way for increased regulation. Page five of the report, for example, explains that its purpose is to provide "data that can form the basis for inquiries into whether policy levers could produce superior outcomes." [bold added] Translation: It's a preemptive excuse for FCC intervention.

Advertisement

NEXT: The Subversive Vending Machine

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. inquiries into whether policy levers could produce superior outcomes

    Let me help you with that.

    NO It couldn’t.

    1. If I had to identify FCC policy with one of the six simple machines, it wouldn’t be a lever. Not a pulley, wheel and axle, inclined plane, or wedge either.

      1. Personally, I would vote for wedge, being inexorably driven into our rectums.

        1. In other words “We’re all screwed”.

        2. I’m sure you would.

      2. That’s offensive. Stop it.

        1. I was going to write that comment whether it was offensive or not.

          If I had written that comment for the sole purpose of offending you, you would have a point.

          1. Your intent is irrelevant. It’s offensive. Stop it.

      3. That offends me also. You better stop saying that.

        1. I’m offended that you’re offended by that. Stop it.

          1. No one does offended like I do offended!

            1. Here’s those fresh batteries for your bullhorn, Mr. Sharpton!

  2. Of course, wireless service has done nothing but get cheaper and better over the years, so it has to be regulated.

    1. Well somebody has to protect consumers from cheap internet access.

      1. Rarely is the regulatory midset demonstrated as clearly as it is here.

        Anytime you see something growing and expanding, and there are no rules, you need to regulate it.

        Joanna Doven, spokeswoman for Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl

        1. HAH! I thought you were paraphrasing in your link….oops, nope, that’s exactly what she said.

          I posted to FB (with attribution) – thanks, JsubD – this was my “Statist of the Day”!

  3. “Commissioner Genachowski said it’s an effort to avoid making a “simplistic” yes or no conclusion. ”

    How about you just don’t make a decision period, shut the fuck up and go back to making sure no one says any swear words on public airwaves?

    Is this the same asshole who said that internet businesses were still trying to find the right business model?

    Are all of these people this retarded?

    1. Anyone know how to draw a guillotine using text?

      1. =-| o

        This is the result of the guillotine (as viewed from above) – best I could do for now – hope this helps!

  4. Regulating business of any kind is like trying to prevent fires. Who would do that? Or building a dike to prevent floods. I mean, how stupid.

    1. Having the FCC regulate the wireless industry is akin to building a dike to prevent flooding in the Mojave desert.

      1. Having the FCC regulate the wireless industry is akin to building a dike to prevent flooding in the Mojave desert.

        I think this works better:

        Having the FCC regulate the wireless industry is akin to building a dike to prevent flooding in the Pacific Ocean.

      2. Not the best analogy, since building a dike in the Mojave isn’t going to ruin it. More like building a wall around a river mouth to keep ocean levels from rising.

        1. More like building a dike around a dike to prevent more dikes from being built.

          1. It’s dikes all the way down, son.

            1. And that’s the way I like it.

            2. That’s offensive. Stop it.

              1. And that’s the way, uh huh, uh huh, I like it . . . . .

            3. Tulpa, your comments are insulting to lesbians. Stop it.

        2. That’s offensive, Tulpa. Stop it.

    2. So tell us, Max, what are the “superior outcomes” we’ll be sure to get from government regulation in this area? No analogies: be specific.

      1. It will keep you spinning in your fucked up ideology. That’s a good thing, isn’t it?

        1. But what will keep you from spinning in yours? Damn, that’s what’s really scary. I mean, think of the children.

        2. So, you’ve got nothing, then. You just like the idea of government regulation.

          1. It’s not even that. He’s just here to be an annoying shitglob.

      2. Superior amounts of industry cash thrown at congressmen and regulators. That’s what it always comes down to.

  5. I love the term “policy levers” – such a phrase makes one feel like society is a giant, rather simplistic machine.

    1. I love the low bar they set for themselves: “could produce superior outcomes”, not, say, “are highly likely to produce faster connections to more people at lower pricing, after taking into account all direct and indirect costs.”

      1. I suspect they consider more regulation itself to be a superior outcome.

        1. That’s offensive. Stop it.

    2. As a former telecom industry engineer, I wholeheartedly say to the FCC, f*ck off. The wireless companies have enough problems that they have created for themselves. More government ain’t gonna’ help.

  6. sigh And a judge will just have to smack Genachowski down again.

  7. The airwaves are our public toilet. Now, we have to plunger that toilet once in a while, and that takes money.
    Where was I going with this analogy? (Emphasis on “anal”)

    1. Are you comparing the FCC to Metamucil?

      1. How can we afford not to tax ourselves? Think of the chillren forced to view unregulated sex.
        No sir, the only sex my kids will see is the regulated government approved kind.
        And the maybe stray dogs, but what can you do about that. Fookin government aninamal control programs. What am I paying for ?

      2. That’s offensive to me. Stop it.

      3. Big difference between FCC and Metamucil. Metamucil works well and, under the right circumstances, personally benefits me.

  8. The way to increase stifle competition is to erect barriers to market entry which is what government regulation invariably does.

    You need a far better reason that “increasing competition” or “protecting consumers from ‘predatory pricing'” to justify regulation of an industry.

  9. LOL, thats too funny dude. The FCC is about as useless as the TSA.

    Lou
    http://www.complete-anonymity.at.tc

  10. Commissioner Genachowski said it’s an effort to avoid making a “simplistic” yes or no conclusion.

    But yet, that’s exactly what they’ll do.

    Gosh, which one will it be? [chews on fingernails in anticipation]

  11. Government can’t do anything right, and thus needs to stay away from the Internet, which was developed by for-profit businesses.

    Oh, wait…

    1. Hey Dan. Are you a Native American? If not, please self-deport now.

      1. Oh yeah, well why don’t you self-deport, Gobbler, to… TEH SOMALIA!!!

        1. DRINK, or I’ll be offended, and you’ll need to stop it.

    2. The internet should return to its government roots and everyone should be using PINE as their email program.

    3. The WWW – i.e, the graphical user interface overlaying the internet, which made the explosion of consumer-friendly internet access and use possible, was not developed by the government.

      Just because government funds the construction of the highways doesn’t mean they made all transportation possible. Private industry built cars, trucks, buses and airplanes.

      1. Ahem, wasn’t HTTP developed at CERN? Not the US government for sure, but a government institution.

    4. Gosh, Dan, to my knowledge you’ve never given an indication you’re in favor of government censorship of the internet. Thanks for clarifying that aspect of your personal belief system. It will help in future arguments.

  12. The ARPANET was designed to be massively parallel to ensure the delivery of launch codes to ICBMs after major portions of the network were wiped out by a Soviet attack.

    For-profit businesses have spent the last several decades trying to overcome the inherent inefficies in TCP/IP to provide responsive service to paying customers.

    Go fuck yourself you moron.

    1. Seriously, it seems like net neutrality would be something libertarians would be in favor of…I mean, having a handful of corporations control internet content doesn’t seem any more liberating than having a government control internet content.

      1. You get dumber and dumber with each post.

        Libertarians believe that the business that invests its own captial dollars to lay communications cables should be able to sign whatever kind of contract it wants to with whomever is willing to sign the contract.

        Net neutrality is about the government putting terms and conditions on the use of privately funded infrastructure.

        So again, go fuck yourself you complete moron.

        1. So basically it is a matter of semantics to you, then? If you call the people who control internet content “government” it’s bad, if you call them “private”, it’s cool?

          1. **barf**

          2. First of all, net neutrality is about managing bandwitdh not controlling content.

            And yes, government regulation that limits the options that a service provider has to offer services to a paying customer is bad.

            1. “net neutrality is about managing bandwitdh not controlling content, which is something government will do after they manage the bandwith.

              Sorry, had to clarify that.

      2. So to help you understand your level of stupidity. The US government funded the development of the TCP/IP stack which is used extensively in public and private networks around the world. Private businesses laid the thousands of miles of fiber optic cables that let you send emails from whatever basement you live in.

      3. Starve the dimwit, please.

        1. I’m sorry father, it has been 8 minutes since I sinned last.

          1. You may, of course, do as you please. I was just asking. The notion of him cackling and batin’ to everyone rising to his baiting is just horrifying to me.

            1. There is a DSM classification for that affliction, Saccharin Man. Both Dan T.’s condition, as well as yours for imagining it.

      4. I mean, having a handful of corporations control internet content doesn’t seem any more liberating than having a government control internet content.

        So, between the corporations and the FCC, which is the one that produces all sorts of interesting content, and which is the one that bans dirty words and violence and sex from showing up on radio and TV?

        So why do you find the censor more liberating, Dan T.?

    2. So why did those for-profit companies not just build their own efficient network rather than piggybacking on an inefficient one conceived for an entirely different purpose? Because they didn’t want to deal with the massive start-up costs that would entail. Which makes you wonder if the Internet as we know it would have existed had its skeleton at least not been funded by govt.

  13. January 2009 ? October 2009: SEIU’s Andrew Stern visits the White House extremely frequently and meets with many Obama administration officials.

    October 2009: SEIU-NPA holds street action protests in Chicago against the American Banking Association.

    October 2009: SEIU-NPA protest outside the home of Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein.

    November 2009: SEIU’s Andrew Stern visits the White House frequently and meets with many Obama administration officials (No further visitor data is available after January 31, 2010.)

    November 2009: SEIU-NPA Showdown DC: Goldman Sachs, Treasury.

    March 2010: SEIU-NPA ShowMe State Showdown.

    April 2010: Andrew Stern retires from SEIU.

    April 2010: SEIU-NPA Showdown on Wells Fargo.

    April 2010: SEIU-NPA Showdown on Wall Street.

    May 2010: SEIU-NPA terrorize a teenage boy home alone, and possibly break Federal laws by storming into banks, taking over their lobbies and shutting down their businesses.

    Are the American people expected to believe that over the course of these several working visits to the White House that the subject of the street mob actions Andrew Stern’s union was sponsoring and coordinating never once came up?

    1. You people are harming my patient with all this anti-union propaganda.

  14. I hereby label the FCC as “inefficient” and “unnecessary” and demand an inquiry into its disbandment.

  15. The FCC’s ONLY job should be selling, not simply giving stupid rent-licenses to, airspace. We need CLEAR property rights on this kind of shit. There’s no such thing as the “public airwaves.” It’s first come first serve based on who can afford it and utilize the resources best, just like with EVERY OTHER product in our free-market economy!

    Is this the most Marxist FCC or wut?

  16. I don’t see any problem with telecom as of late. Seems to working fine to me! How about these FCC blowhards, if they TRULY care about consumers, ask US what we think, rather than assume bullshit about a topic they know nothing about?

  17. But of course, that assumes the FCC blowhards CARE about consumers and telecom and don’t just wanna regulate and gain more power.

  18. My fear is that the FCC will create so many policies it has to enforce it won’t have the funds to manage it all… and then it will just borrow more from China, or our children’s retirement. Ugh.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.