Wednesday, November 12, 2003
Comment: Isenberg is wrong on FCC attempt to regulate VoIP
Baratunde Thurston writes:
I have a lot of sympathy for what Thurston is saying. The first time I read the Powell-to-Wyden letter, I felt much as Thurston did. Thurston observes that in his reading of the Powell letter, the FCC is not speeding to a conclusion, the FCC is allowing for public comment, and the FCC does not want to impose new Internet taxes for VoIP telephony. In my first reading of the Powell letter, I thought so too. But yesterday Reed Hundt raised some serious questions, and I've seen up close how the FCC can work, e.g., in the matter of the Triennial Order and in the matter of media ownership caps.
Here's what I think I learned (subject to correction, of course, 'cause I'm no expert) from what Hundt said yesterday:
1. Legally, the FCC must have an NOI (Notice of Inquiry) process before it issues an NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making). Apparently, there's an exception if the FCC holds an official public hearing with all Commissioners present, which is what the FCC is doing. Q: Why is the FCC making this exception in this case? A: We don't know and beyond Powell's statement that "Things have greatly accelerated," the FCC has not told us. We can only guess, and my guess is that the FCC wants to get out in front of the various state PUCs and issue its own set of regs. Fine, but what are these regs, who decided, and with what input? (Hint: Not mine.)
2. Legally, there must be 12 month waiting period between the NPRM and the actual rule making. Usually there's not much change between the NPRM and the final rule. The process for public comment, the Notice of Inquiry, is usually where the rule is formed, but this process is being circumvented.
3. The FCC, in its December 1 hearing, will hear comments from a very narrow sector of the public. The letter says that there will be, "a wide range of witnesses from industry and government," but apparently it will not hear from entrepreneurs, end users, et cetera, who have as big a stake in the future of the Internet as "industry and government", at this hearing.
Thurston closes his objections to my comments with this quote from the Powell letter:
I'd like to believe that I'm wrong. I'd like to give Powell the benefit of the doubt. I want to believe that the FCC is acting in my interests, and in the interests of the future. I SINCERELY HOPE that I am wrong. But Hundt believes that the fix is in and offers strong evidence. What happens at the December 1 hearing and the NPRM that will follow shortly will tell.
I think the short answer to this blog entry's title (Has the FCC already decided how to regulate Internet Telephony?) is "No, it hasn't."Thurston's complete letter (with email address removed by request) is here.
I just read through the blog entry and the referenced letters, and David Isenberg seems to have things a bit twisted. . . . The letter seems to directly contradict Isenberg's interpretation . . .
I have a lot of sympathy for what Thurston is saying. The first time I read the Powell-to-Wyden letter, I felt much as Thurston did. Thurston observes that in his reading of the Powell letter, the FCC is not speeding to a conclusion, the FCC is allowing for public comment, and the FCC does not want to impose new Internet taxes for VoIP telephony. In my first reading of the Powell letter, I thought so too. But yesterday Reed Hundt raised some serious questions, and I've seen up close how the FCC can work, e.g., in the matter of the Triennial Order and in the matter of media ownership caps.
Here's what I think I learned (subject to correction, of course, 'cause I'm no expert) from what Hundt said yesterday:
1. Legally, the FCC must have an NOI (Notice of Inquiry) process before it issues an NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making). Apparently, there's an exception if the FCC holds an official public hearing with all Commissioners present, which is what the FCC is doing. Q: Why is the FCC making this exception in this case? A: We don't know and beyond Powell's statement that "Things have greatly accelerated," the FCC has not told us. We can only guess, and my guess is that the FCC wants to get out in front of the various state PUCs and issue its own set of regs. Fine, but what are these regs, who decided, and with what input? (Hint: Not mine.)
2. Legally, there must be 12 month waiting period between the NPRM and the actual rule making. Usually there's not much change between the NPRM and the final rule. The process for public comment, the Notice of Inquiry, is usually where the rule is formed, but this process is being circumvented.
3. The FCC, in its December 1 hearing, will hear comments from a very narrow sector of the public. The letter says that there will be, "a wide range of witnesses from industry and government," but apparently it will not hear from entrepreneurs, end users, et cetera, who have as big a stake in the future of the Internet as "industry and government", at this hearing.
Thurston closes his objections to my comments with this quote from the Powell letter:
- "There is universal agreement that these Internet services hold great promise for the American people. Imposing regulatory burdens on these new and emerging Internet services, before the FCC fully engages the public and develops a comprehensive record, may have the unintended consequence of stifling its growth and denying the public benefits of that growth."Thurston observes, "unless you believe Powell means the opposite of what he says (who knows? Could be a fair assumption), Isenberg is just plain wrong."
I'd like to believe that I'm wrong. I'd like to give Powell the benefit of the doubt. I want to believe that the FCC is acting in my interests, and in the interests of the future. I SINCERELY HOPE that I am wrong. But Hundt believes that the fix is in and offers strong evidence. What happens at the December 1 hearing and the NPRM that will follow shortly will tell.
Comments:
Post a Comment
