Results tagged “Comcast decision”

April 20, 2010 5:09 PM

Comcast Stands for . . . Status Quo?

You must be thinking, "[w]hat's this guy thinking (smoking?)?"  I mean, a lot has happened in the last month or so--mainly the FCC's release of its long-awaited National Broadband Plan (on  March 16th) and the D.C. Circuit's "Comcast" decision, released on April 5th--and I've had exactly nothing to say . . . at least not on this blog.  But while I was busy not blogging, the domestication of the dog continued, unabated, and other people had lots of smart things to say--which takes the pressure off me.

Before I can defend the title of this post, I have to lay out "the status quo."  For this, I am going to borrow from, and corrupt, a perfectly appropriate analogy used by Tom Tauke of Verizon in a March 24th speech.  In this speech, Tauke ("Mr. Tauke", as I like to call him) opens with the wonderfully evocative image of the Winchester Mystery House in San Jose, CA--a house that started as a small farmhouse, but underwent 24/7 construction over 38 years to become a Victorian mansion that appears to have been built upon pure caprice.

To the outside observer, the construction served no practical purpose, with a hallway ending in a second story door that opened to a dead drop down, steps that lead nowhere, and other architectural anomalies. Mr. Tauke uses the Winchester House as an analogy to the evolution of regulatory statutes that are stuck in a technology-specific past, and thus appear to have no practical purpose in a world where multiple technologies, devices, and applications are all used in a similar manner--to provide consumers with access to a primarily (and trending exclusively) Internet-based, communications network.

As I said, I LOVE the Winchester House as a starting point, but, not being nearly as diplomatic and classy as Mr. Tauke, I'll take a little artistic license, add a little context, hurt a few feelings, and generally "keep it real."  First, if you didn't click the Winchester House link above, you wouldn't get the full context from the Tauke speech, because, though the Winchester House is exactly as described in the speech, it only appears to have no practical purpose--but it's purpose was never to produce an object of pragmatism, or even of art or architecture.  Resale value was the last thing the owner was looking to produce.

You see, the owner was the heiress of the Winchester rifle fortune.  After her husband and daughter died young, and in relatively quick succession, Mrs. Winchester was told by a medium that her husband and daughter had their lives claimed by the vengeful souls of those whose lives were cut short by the invention which had made her rich.  The medium advised Mrs. Winchester that if she never completed her house, she would somehow appease the spirits, and would not suffer the same premature death as her husband and daughter.  Said differently, the construction of the Winchester House, while motivated by fear and superstition, was the purpose of the construction of the Winchester House.  The owner wasn't moving, wasn't looking for resale value, and "completion" in any pragmatic sense of the word was, in the mind of the owner, a little scary--in that it would cause her sudden death at the hands of angry supernatural beings.

With this context in mind, it isn't too hard (even if it is a little mean) to say that the FCC and its many Notices of Proposed Rulemakings ("NPRMs")--through which it attempts to implement the directives of Congress, including some of the central recommendations in the National Broadband Plan are not a dissimilar comparison to Mrs. Winchester and the Winchester Mystery House, and are a very apt analogy to the status quo.  The Commission, motivated by political fears and superstition--fears inspired by the political power of Congress, made superstitious by the contradictory, twin fears of not appearing responsive--on the one hand--and of looking foolish, or alienating the politically powerful by being responsive, but getting the "wrong" answer.

This is the status quo.  It has always been the status quo.  For example, Congress could not have been more clear in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that it wanted the Commission to eliminate all implicit subsidies to high cost carriers, and to have all contributions to the Universal Service Fund made explicit.  Fourteen years later, the Commission has yet to complete this relatively simple directive, despite releasing numerous unfinished NPRMs during that time.  But guess what?  Docket No. 96-45, the original USF Reform NPRM, is still going strong . . . despite the continuous construction of numerous issue-specific orders/remands/FNPRMs and "area code splits" (new dockets created to account for specific issues).

At last week's Senate hearing on the National Broadband Plan, Chairman Genachowski seemed to be quite proud of the fact that, as part of implementing the National Broadband Plan, his Commission had scheduled releasing NPRM's on Universal Service Reform (contribution and distribution) and Intercarrier Compensation Reform for sometime during the 4th quarter of this year.  Chairman Rockefeller seemed less happy--in his opening remarks (about 22 mins into the hearing)--he berates the Commission for its "recommendations" to numerous other agencies, and the fact that the Broadband Report says "Congress should" 139 times.  Chairman Rockefeller also said that simply asking for comments is not enough.  But, hey, dispensing the fear is part of his job, right?

So, how does the April 5th Comcast decision preserve the status quo?  I mean, at first glance, and second glance, the Comcast decision was all about "Net Neutrality" policies.  All the smart guys say so.  Don't believe me?  Read Hank Hultquist's posts 1 , 2, and Harold Feld's post on the decision--and be sure to click on all the links (read them all over 5 or 6 hours and then you'll know everything there is to know about Comcast, Net Neutrality, and the history of broadband Internet access service classifications).

But, who cares about Net Neutrality, right?  The FCC will figure it out (Genachowski at 48, 69, and 108 mins into hearing) and preserve the "status quo" of the "open" Internet.  But wait, there's more.  Despite the FCC's confidence in its ability to ensure the safety of the open Internet, regretably, the Comcast decision has caused the FCC to rethink critical parts of their Broadband Plan.  Even Chairman Rockefeller relents, and recognizes this tragedy (at just the 27 minute mark).  The FCC's General Counsel agrees, and, by the 113 minute mark of the Senate hearing, so did Chairman Genachowski.

The thing I just can't reconcile, though, is that--even though the FCC has NEVER classified VoIP as a Title I or Title II service--the Commission has had no problems imposing public safety, and Universal Service contribution obligations on VoIP service providers.  A more cynical person might say Comcast has become just another excuse to continue construction . . . because getting it right is more important than getting it done.

Fear, superstition, and action for the sake of preserving existence . . . so what did Comcast change?  It doesn't look like much, except maybe making the Winchester Mystery House a little less mysterious . . .

[End Note:  I watched last Wednesday's Senate Oversight Hearing at least 3 times (my penance for not blogging in six weeks).  At times, it seemed the Senators were a little harsh on the FCC (albeit, in a theatrical, "Kobuki", "bad cop" kind of way).  The House Hearing on the National Broadband Plan on March 25th was, in contrast, a virtual love-fest.  On the issue of the National Broadband Plan, I think Congress gave the FCC too broad a mandate to criticize a good faith effort.  If they wanted a "real" work plan (See Senator Begich's very good questions around the 88 minute mark), they should have specifically asked for what they wanted. Finally, I really hope the FCC doesn't let Comcast become an excuse, or some other sort of bugaboo, that hinders the expeditious resolution of some badly needed repairs that will set the foundation for further broadband deployment.]