It's always good to hear from William E. Kennard, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission from 1997 to 2001, on the board of The New York Times.
And it's even more amusing to read his words.
It seems those of us in Blogistan, Left Behind or Righteous, just don't have our priorities right.
Any serious discussion of the future of the Internet should start with a basic fact: broadband is transforming every facet of communications, from entertainment and telephone services to delivery of vital services like health care. But this also means that the digital divide, once defined as the chasm separating those who had access to narrowband dial-up Internet and those who didn’t, has become a broadband digital divide.
The nation should have a full-scale policy debate about the direction of the broadband Internet, especially about how to make sure that all Americans get access to broadband connections.
Unfortunately, the current debate in Washington is over “net neutrality” — that is, should network providers be able to charge some companies special fees for faster bandwidth. This is essentially a battle between the extremely wealthy (Google, Amazon and other high-tech giants, which oppose such a move) and the merely rich (the telephone and cable industries). In the past year, collectively they have spent $50 million on lobbying and advertising, effectively preventing Congress and the public from dealing with more pressing issues...
Yes, pity the poor telecoms, mired up with all those net neutrality nattering natterbobs of negatism. You know those limousine liberals at Google and Amazon hate the hard working blue collar types that own AT&T...
...First, to ensure that broadband reaches into rural, low income and other underserved communities, Congress should reform the Universal Service Fund, the federal subsidy paid to companies that provide telephone service to rural areas. For decades, the fund has been financed by a federal fee or surcharge that consumers pay on interstate phone calls. But the fund in its current form is not an effective way to support expanded broadband access. It is not fair to expect telephone consumers to bear the sole burden of the subsidy, and the decline in revenue from traditional long-distance calling is shrinking the base for contributions to the fund.
We must find a new source of revenue for the fund that does not exclusively tax users of the phone network. And we should adopt a much more efficient way to distribute precious fund dollars. All communications companies — telephone, cable TV or wireless network operators — that want government financing to provide broadband services to specific underserved communities should submit competitive bids to the fund. The F.C.C.’s chairman, Kevin Martin, has opened the debate on this proposal, called a reverse auction, which would ensure that only the most efficient companies would be granted subsidies to provide service to rural areas. This is a step in the right direction...
Reverse auction? Ya gotta wonder what kind of scam that is. The Feds hold an auction to figure out how much cash they give telcoms?
...Second, Congress should put all broadband providers on a level playing field. Both the cable and telephone industries are racing to provide a bundle of services to consumers. Each wants to be the consumer’s one-stop shop for video, voice and data services. Unfortunately, the legacy of historic regulation puts the telephone companies at a serious regulatory disadvantage in quickly deploying video services...
Yup, it's those pesky gummint regulations. Look how well deregulation worked for, example, Enron. Now there's a model the Company loves!
...Both industries could benefit from national franchising legislation that would streamline the franchising process and promote innovation and competition. (Disclosure: Some companies in which I invest at The Carlyle Group could also benefit from the wave of investment that would result from such legislation...)
Really? Who woulda knowed? So now it's okay, right, you've assured us how nonpartisan and disinterested you are.
Good ol' Slick Willie Kennard, the shyster responsible for turning the Gray Lady into a courtesan for the Powers. It's always nice to know what you think, Willie. I always appreciate an obvious crook.
Just another Reality-based bubble in the foam of the multiverse.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I'm confused. You basically say that folks should be talking about net neutrality then you argue for it yourself.
...Second, Congress should put all broadband providers on a level playing field. Both the cable and telephone industries are racing to provide a bundle of services to consumers. Each wants to be the consumer’s one-stop shop for video, voice and data services. Unfortunately, the legacy of historic regulation puts the telephone companies at a serious regulatory disadvantage in quickly deploying video services...
Was that purposeful and I just missed the nuance. I know that you wrote some of this tongue-in-cheek.
Liz Strauss
Feel free to email me back.
lizsun2 at gmail [dot] com
Liz, almost everything I write needs to be taken with large chunks of salt or whatever condiment you prefer.
I am absolutely for net neutrality. However, the italicized words in the text above are those of Mr. Kennard here. I should be clearer.
Mr. Kennard, if you look closely, isn't for net neurality: he's arguing that neutrality doesn't exist.
Not that he's concerned with the rights of the end user, meaning you or me. The profitability of the telcoms and specifically the Bells, the clients of the Carlyle Group (and the principal agents of the NSA) are the ones he's concerned with. These agents are pretty highly profitable already, and merging towards monopoly under the AT&T banner already.
The whole bit is a ploy to convince Times, or as it's been called, Pravda readers that net neutrality really isn't worth the fuss. And while we're at it, we should do more to help the helpless telcoms by taxing the cable guys more for the internet- and you, too incidently.
Post a Comment