A note on Next week's vote at the FCC (I will post other points of view if well stated djf)

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Brett Glass <brett () lariat net>
> Date: October 15, 2009 14:12:43 PDT
> To: dave () farber net, ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
> Subject: Re: [IP] A note on Next week's vote at the FCC (I will post  
> other points of view if well stated djf)

> Dave, and everyone:
>
> Here is a letter which I wrote to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski  
> regarding the upcoming vote.
>
> --Brett Glass
>
> ------
>
> Mr. Chairman:
>
> When you were confirmed, and again at last month's Congressional  
> oversight hearing, you pledged that the FCC would be "data-driven"  
> and would only regulate when the data showed that markets did not  
> work. In this spirit, the Commission should issue an NOI (Notice of  
> Inquiry) rather than an NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making) at its  
> October 22nd meeting. An NOI would likely be approved by a unanimous  
> vote (as opposed to an NPRM, which is likely to be contentious and  
> would likely cause a 3-2 partisan split). It would allow data to be  
> gathered and facts to be considered before any rules were drafted  
> (if, in fact, any were needed at all). It would also conform to the  
> wishes of Congress, from which the FCC derives its authority.
>
> An NOI would further allow time for the data from broadband mapping  
> projects to arrive, giving a much better picture of the competitive  
> landscape. And it would allow time for the court in the Comcast  
> matter to rule on the extent of the FCC's authority to regulate,  
> thus ensuring that if an NPRM were issued the rules would be known  
> to be within the scope of that authority.
>
> Finally, an NOI would allow time for the Commission to act first on  
> the issue of special access and "middle mile" pricing. It is clear  
> that almost any set of "network neutrality" rules, if imposed, would  
> require providers to buy more bandwidth. If middle mile pricing  
> issues are not resolved first, the result would be to increase  
> providers' costs, possibly raising prices to consumers and/or  
> driving small and competitive providers, whose margins are razor  
> thin, out of business. The latter would harm both competition and  
> the extent of broadband deployment. However, approaching the  
> problems in the opposite order would soften the blow to providers  
> should regulation be implemented which substantially increases their  
> bandwidth needs.
>
> An NOI would also allow more time to consider spectrum issues.  
> Currently, as a small, wireless ISP, I am essentially locked out of  
> the spectrum auction process and am forced to use unlicensed  
> spectrum, which is becoming more crowded by the day. Should  
> regulations be passed which required me to transmit and receive more  
> data, they could cause substantial network bottlenecks because the  
> amount of available spectrum is limited and the high noise levels on  
> that spectrum preclude higher spectral efficiencies due to the  
> constraints of Shannon's Law.
>
> For all of these reasons, I and my many colleagues (by most  
> accounts, there are between 4,000 and 8,000 small and independent  
> ISPs in the US) respectfully request that the FCC take a cautious,  
> data-driven approach, and that a Notice of Inquiry, rather than a  
> Notice of Proposed Rule Making, be issued at the meeting on October  
> 22nd. To do so would ensure that regulations that purported to  
> preserve an "open" Internet did not effectively close it to our  
> customers by preventing us from continuing in business.
>
> Brett Glass
> Owner and Founder, LARIAT
> The world's first wireless ISP (WISP)



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com