The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) took a step toward a national broadband policy when they opened debate to the public per the broadband development policy requirement in the economic stimulus package that was passed earlier this year.

The rhetoric put forth is that every American has a right to high-speed Internet connections regardless of their economic, geographic, or social situation, and that they should have the necessary skills and devices to use the Internet.

Acting FCC Chairman Michael Copps says he believes that “real economic and social progress needs to be fueled by both vigorous private enterprise and enlightened public policy.” And he wants to be the one to institute that public policy.

The Obama administration’s Susan Crawford, who was an advisor for the Obama transition team, sees public broadband being no different from other utilities: “This is like water, electricity, sewage systems -- something that all Americans need in order to succeed in the modern era.”

Already acknowledging that the $7.2 billion alloted will never be enough to blanket the nation with high-speed broadband, the FCC tacked on even more considerations and plans. Immediately the FCC approved the proposal to improve data collection about broadcasting entities owned by women and minorities because expanding media diversity is a priority of the FCC.

The government’s FCC wants everyone to know that “openness,” and “avoiding invasions of peoples’ privacy,” and ensuring “cyber security” are going to be challenges. But if it’s anything like the “transparency” and “privacy” we now have, most don’t want any part of it.

First, though, they must divvy up the pieces of the $7.2 billion pie by agreeing to the criteria for grant applicants and specific projects. The big telecom companies are very worried about the "open access" conditions that will probably be attached to the government grants. But there are plenty who are lining up at the trough.

Verizon seems to be on board with the government’s plan. Susanne Guyer, a senior vice president there, said, “Given its importance to economic growth, job creation, and international competitiveness, creating a climate for investment in advanced broadband networks should be Job One at the FCC.”

But Joe Waz, a spokesman for Comcast Corp., which just happens to be the nation’s largest cable company, doesn’t see the government’s intervention quite like Guyer. Waz insists that there is plenty of competition, and it’s competition that works in a free marketplace. “Speeds have kept going up. Prices have stayed flat on a real dollar basis and have continued to decline in terms of the price per megabit delivered,” he said. Waz also said many of his competitors at phone companies are already investing billions of dollars in fiber-optic networks.

Nationalization, socialization, state-control, call it what you will, it’s an intrusion in the private sector by the government that has become all to common since January 21.

What can only come out of this is real competition will be eliminated, prices will go up — those of us who already pay a private company for our service will have to pay again, through our taxes for those on the receiving end of the new dole — and features and speeds will more than likely drop off.

FCC Chairman Copps said, “If we do our jobs right, this will be the most formative and, I believe, transformative proceeding ever in this commission’s history.”

And by golly, I think he’s right on this one, if he gets his way.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (4)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

danwhitehead1 said:

	And the accrections of power - - - - - - move faster and faster.
	report abuse vote down vote up

April 14, 2009
Votes: +0

danwhitehead1 said:

	Oops Correct spelling: accretions.
	report abuse vote down vote up

April 14, 2009
Votes: +0

Pat Henry said:

The Provider Decides Limits "He who pays the piper calls the tune" Howard Phillips often reminds me. In this case--as in every case--the federal government "providing" internet means the federal government will then regulate internet, including allowable speech. This is a grandiose attempt to bait users, in order to CONTROL the information. State interest has nothing to do with safety. The State is concerned about the information (such as JBS and The New American provide) that is so devastating to a comprehensive State. Just look at China. Punch the camel's nose before it gets any further into your tent.

report abuse vote down vote up

April 16, 2009
Votes: +3

Stophel said:

You asked for fascism, you got it. This along with the "Cybersecurity act of 2009"... The goal is to provide cheap or "free" internet service to everyone, which, of course, will put private internet providers out of business (heck, I'll stick with my slow, private dial up as long as I can, and I will NOT accept the government internet hookup). And, of course, with the government as the service provider, they can, and will, limit what you can see on the internet. Oh, child porn will be OK, but anything considered "right wing" will be restricted.

report abuse vote down vote up

April 16, 2009
Votes: +2