TeleComSense Congratulates Mignon Clyburn On Her FCC Nomination!
Now there are two . . . FCC nominees by President Obama. Earlier this week, President Obama announced the most recent Democratic FCC Commissioner, South Carolina Public Service Commission veteran Mignon Clyburn. Commissioner Clyburn seems like another candidate with excellent experience--more than 10 years on the South Carolina PSC--and the practical knowledge of regulation [and its limits] to profoundly advance the public interest [if she's smart enough to help Chairman-to-be Genachowski stick with the "simple, but tough" regulatory priorities outlined by TeleComSense]. I wish her well, and I know she'll make the President look good, if she sticks to the hard work--the work that hasn't been done, but that needs to be done. I'm talking about the work that the FCC has been tasked with by the law for the last 13 years--because of a reluctance to take on politically-contentious issues by the Commission.
While I can't really vouch for Commissioner Clyburn, because I have mostly worked on federal (vs. state) issues, I am a little annoyed at the many stories that suggest she is just another beneficiary of nepotism. You can't read a story about Commissioner Clyburn that doesn't note that her father is the House Majority Whip, Congressman James Clyburn. [I don't recall as many critical stories about Michael Powell being appointed to FCC Chairman in 2001, with not nearly as much experience as a regulator, right after President Bush appointed his father to be Secretary of State.] I do have to ask, though, why do we know (as many critics seem to) that President Obama's choice of Ms. Clyburn is dangerous to the American public?
Ms. Clyburn's relationship to the House Whip isn't necessarily a bad thing, because much of the Commission's hesitance to make difficult decisions comes from fear of Congressional reaction. If Chairman Genachowski (the President's friend and former classmate), and Ms. Clyburn (daughter of the House Whip) are solidly behind a policy (with other Commissioners), then criticism (or fear of it) from Congress will be seriously muted. If anything, Ms. Clyburn's appointment could help to (finally) make the agency a little more willing to take some action on important-but-contentious matters.
Curiously, many self-described, politically-left organizations have reacted negatively to Ms. Clyburn's appointment. Without any factual basis, these groups have characterized her as being "pro-Bell" and (I guess) anti-competition. Others have suggested, again with no basis in fact, that Ms. Clyburn's "philosophies" will clash with those of President Obama and Chairman-to-be Genachowski--even going so far as to suggest that Ms. Clyburn would (as the de facto "AT&T" Commissioner)--be a force on the Commission opposing what these groups believe can be the only "progressive" agenda.
To read some of this nonsense, one might think there were no competitive carriers in South Carolina. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nuvox Communications is based in S.C. and is one of the larger CLECs in the entire Southeast. Importantly, South Carolina has a vibrant competitive wholesale market, with not just out-of-region, integrated carriers like Verizon Business Solutions, and Qwest Communications, but also home-grown wholesale competitors, like PalmettoNet and Spirit Telecom, which all facilitate other wireless and wireline competitive carriers. Finally, a competitive carrier headquartered in adjacent Cary, N.C., Bandwidth.com does business in South Carolina. Chairman-select Genachowski is/was on the Board of Advisors of Bandwidth.com. If South Carolina's Commission--of which Commissioner Clyburn was a member for over 10 years--was so hostile to competition, how do these firms exist and flourish?
Finally, the Eighth Circuit released its decision today that the FCC's 2006 conclusion that "nomadic" interconnected VoIP providers, like Vonage provide an interstate service. The court sided with Vonage and determined that such carriers do not have to pay into state "universal service" funds. Technologically speaking, there is very little that binds any carrier, over time, to providing voice service as a "traditional" telecommunications service versus a "nomadic" VoIP service. Classifying VoIP service is critical to the broadband stimulus grants, and more importantly, to reforming Universal Service and Intercarrier Compensation.
If the FCC continues on its path of politically-comfortable indecision with respect to these seemingly-boring, but politically dangerous issues, the "advanced services" that the "net neutrality" advocates see as being so dependent on that one issue--an issue, by the way, that I think has spawned more white papers than litigation--may not be around for long. Net neutrality is only important if there is an interconnected network of networks that continues to evolve. The development of that network of networks is shaped by resource transfers that are difficult to police by the average consumer, or even the average regulator. There is potentially a lot of money that hinges on whether the FCC classifies all VoIP as "interstate" or a "telecommunications" or "information" service).
Decisions made out of fear are almost always wrong. Wouldn't you rather have a Commission that doesn't start out politically scared? There's no guarantee they'll get the answers right, but if you're not too scared to take a swing, at least you'll have a "slugger's chance." A slugger's chance is a lot better than no chance. I don't pretend to know Commissioner Clyburn, much less predict her future performance as an FCC member, but I hate "haters", and I'll always take the slugger's chance. Welcome, Commissioner Clyburn, and Good Luck!
Leave a comment