FCC flummoxed by private-sector approach to Internet

posted at 2:55 pm on August 6, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

The FCC has abandoned an effort to get the private sector to back its power play on Internet authority after Google reached an agreement with Verizon on network access.  The private negotiations took the wind out of Julius Genachowski’s net neutrality sails, and left the FCC chair with nothing to bring to Congress for explicit regulatory authority.  That doesn’t mean they’ve given up the fight, however:

The Federal Communications Commission Thursday suspended its weeks-long series of talks with Internet providers on Net neutrality, dealing a blow to efforts to produce a deal that the agency could take to Congress.

The decision to cut off negotiations marks a major political setback for Chairman Julius Genachowski, whose office reached out to stakeholders six weeks ago to strike an agreement and avoid a public battle over rules that would treat all users’ Web traffic equally.

But the end to industry discussions — which a source close to the FCC talks blamed entirely on news that Google and Verizon separately sought some form of net neutrality agreement — could now force the FCC to take a more aggressive approach to solidifying its broadband authority.

After six weeks, the FCC didn’t get anywhere with the private-sector stakeholders, and not just Google and Verizon.  Genachowski’s push to treat the Internet as a public utility has very little enthusiasm anywhere but to the Left, which insists on imposing more regulation to have government dictate access policies on private networks.  As I explained in June, the Internet is not a public utility nor a monopoly, but a service provided by the private sector with plenty of competition, especially in wireless access.

Genachowski needed an agreement that involved the private sector in order to give him and Congress political cover for a net-neutrality arrangement that leaves the FCC in charge of the Internet — and perhaps even content, or at least access to it.  Without an industry consensus, Congress isn’t about to impose yet another big regulatory burden in a season where voters are already angry about government overreach.  Genachowski will have to either wait for the lame-duck session or once again abuse the rule-making process, which the courts have already blocked once and Congress has demanded he stop doing.

If Genachowski does pursue his goals through rule-making, he may find his budget emptied by a Republican House in January.  Control of the lower chamber means the power to defund such arrogations of power, and the GOP will likely make the FCC one of its first targets in those circumstances.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Those goons won’t be happy until we are all back to communicating with strings and tin cans.

Bishop on August 6, 2010 at 2:58 PM

But…but…you can’t trust evil corporations to give people what they ask for!!! You can only trust an iron-fisted, all-powerful, and egregiously-overpaid bureaucratic organization to properly listen to the people who pay its salaries!

MadisonConservative on August 6, 2010 at 2:59 PM

I think the internet is doing just fine, will I be able to say the same thing if the government gets involve. I’m betting no. They must think too many back assward conservatives are figuring it out.

Cindy Munford on August 6, 2010 at 3:01 PM

The GOP will likely make the EPA one of its first targets

J_Crater on August 6, 2010 at 3:01 PM

Hmmmm……

MadisonConservative on August 6, 2010 at 3:02 PM

The decision to cut off negotiations marks a major political setback for Chairman Julius Genachowski, whose office reached out to stakeholders six weeks ago to strike an agreement and avoid a public battle over rules that would treat all users’ Web traffic equally.

Does this mean that the FCC would be regulating google searches? That is what it sounds like to me, but I’ll admit I know very little about the quest for “Net Neutrality”.

Mord on August 6, 2010 at 3:03 PM

Congress is just looking for something else to tax.

tommer74 on August 6, 2010 at 3:03 PM

Can you hear me now?

tim c on August 6, 2010 at 3:04 PM

After being with Verizon for over 10 years, I am cancelling my cell phones, FIOS, internet, office and home phone services.

Anything that attaches itself to Google will automatically detach me, my family and my friends from their services.

Key West Reader on August 6, 2010 at 3:05 PM

Genachowski will have to either wait for the lame-duck session or once again abuse the rule-making process,

That’s what I’m betting on.

President Panload’s SOP: Because I said so that’s why.

BigWyo on August 6, 2010 at 3:05 PM

Does this mean that the FCC would be regulating google searches? That is what it sounds like to me, but I’ll admit I know very little about the quest for “Net Neutrality”.

Mord on August 6, 2010 at 3:03 PM

Do yourself a favor and switch to either Yahoo or Bing as search engines. Bing has an “in private” feature which prevents tracking cookies, auto-deletes your browsing history, is user friendly and IMHO a much safer option for browsing.

Key West Reader on August 6, 2010 at 3:06 PM

Those goons won’t be happy until we are all back to communicating with strings and tin cans.

Bishop on August 6, 2010 at 2:58 PM

Time to brush up on morse code?

upinak on August 6, 2010 at 3:07 PM

A-holes! It just boggles the mind to think that in America, people would do this, let alone imagine it. Dictators.

For all the huffing, and puffing on the left about the right being this way….the evidence is right in front of them, as to which party is leaning towards a tyranny, and they STILL don’t see it.

I propose we give those 9% of Americans what they want. Send them all to Venezuela to live under a dictatorship for a few years. Maybe a good dose of that will help them see the error of their ways.

capejasmine on August 6, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Time to brush up on morse code?

upinak on August 6, 2010 at 3:07 PM

HAM Radio’s are now in vogue. I bet Umchelle Antoinette doesn’t have one. These things are for the “little people”.

Key West Reader on August 6, 2010 at 3:09 PM

capejasmine on August 6, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Oh! Take Evita Obama with you!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100805/pl_yblog_upshot/first-lady-under-fire-for-her-glitzy-spanish-vacation

capejasmine on August 6, 2010 at 3:09 PM

HAM Radio’s are now in vogue. I bet Umchelle Antoinette doesn’t have one. These things are for the “little people”.

Key West Reader on August 6, 2010 at 3:09 PM

Have you seen how much a tower costs? Whoa.

upinak on August 6, 2010 at 3:11 PM

“…. and I would have gotten away with it too if it weren’t for those pesky kids and that dog … “

WashingtonsWake on August 6, 2010 at 3:12 PM

Does this mean that the FCC would be regulating google searches? That is what it sounds like to me, but I’ll admit I know very little about the quest for “Net Neutrality”.

Mord on August 6, 2010 at 3:03 PM

I think it means the feds would control the message. You would only see and read what they want you to see and read.

I’m not sure, but a friend once told me Google logs everything, forever. Even emails. So I don’t use google. Not sure on others, but for now, Alta Vista is my search engine til I learn more. Might be wise for us to share info on these things. Considering how this administration wants to run things like the kgb.

capejasmine on August 6, 2010 at 3:15 PM

Control of the lower chamber means the power to defund such arrogations of power, and the GOP will likely make the FCC one of its first targets in those circumstances.

Defund this FCC.

And keep pitchforks on the ready!

petefrt on August 6, 2010 at 3:18 PM

The idiots sitting in their mamas’ basements, downloading pirated movies all think the eeeeeevil corporations can pull bandwidth out of their nether regions, but simply refuse to do so.

Bandwidth costs money, and part of the pricing for internet services is based on paying for the bandwidth used. A pirate can use the same amount of bandwidth as a medium-sized company while only paying for residential service. And the law holds network operators responsible for the actions of their customers, if they lack or don’t enforce a TOS that enjoins subscribers from engaging in illegal activity.

Oh yeah, it’s doubtful if Net Neutrality would void the network owner’s responsibility in that regard. So even with “unlimited” bandwidth, pirates are marked (wo)men. Whoops.

Sekhmet on August 6, 2010 at 3:21 PM

di di di daa daa daa di di di

Bishop on August 6, 2010 at 3:22 PM

Control of the lower chamber means the power to defund such arrogations of power, and the GOP will likely make the FCC one of its first targets in those circumstances.

What are you smoking, Ed? Seriously, the GOP wants more distance from the Tea Party than they do the Communist-in-Chief.

Maquis on August 6, 2010 at 3:22 PM

http://www.ixquick.com. Has the most secure searching although it lacks the bling of bing.

Inanemergencydial on August 6, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Those goons won’t be happy until we are all back to communicating with strings and tin cans.

Bishop on August 6, 2010 at 2:58 PM

Freedom-hating filth-beasts are like that.

ebrown2 on August 6, 2010 at 3:25 PM

Those goons won’t be happy until we are all back to communicating with strings and tin cans.

Bishop on August 6, 2010 at 2:58 PM

It’s a feature not a bug of their plan. that way they control the “truth”

unseen on August 6, 2010 at 3:32 PM

What is “net neutrality?”

Does this mean that for every religious site I visit I must visit a porn site? If I visit a pro-Life site will I have to visit a pro-abortion site? If I frequent conservative sites will I have to visit an equal number of leftist sites?

Who decides what is “net neutral” and what is not? Some Internet Tsar appointed by Obama or other president?

The net is already “neutral.” There are far far Left sites and far far Right sites. There are serious academic sites and a lot of whacko sites that are based in anything but verifiable facts. Just because one has a website does not mean people will flock to it…it has to have sustainable content and message. This is one of the few remaining “democratic” vehicles left in the world today…this internet thingie. Leave it the hell alone.

As for “net carriers” and “neutrality,” one does not have to sign up for AOL or Prodigy or whatever the current net access for dummies scam going today. Matter of fact, stay away from them. Get something like Firefox, which is relatively trouble free…and you can access the web with abandon…to your hearts content…and more.

If you cannot afford access…like the measly $25 a month I pay for net access through my cable TV provider…then try the library or any state university…or do what way too many government employees do…use the office net access for all sorts of personal fun.

I visit those web sites I wish. That is plenty neutral for me.

This whole “net neutrality” garbage is nothing less than a planned government takeover of the web so that dissent can be monitored and controlled, and those who advocate for things not in congruance with the Administration will be either forced out by control of net access or have sites they support shut down.

Censorship. Nothing less. That is what “net neutrality” is really all about.

coldwarrior on August 6, 2010 at 3:34 PM

Book title in 2012:

How Net Neutrality Neutralized Obama

The FCC Fails to Communicate

BobMbx on August 6, 2010 at 3:37 PM

HAM Radio’s are now in vogue. I bet Umchelle Antoinette doesn’t have one. These things are for the “little people”.

Key West Reader on August 6, 2010 at 3:09 PM

Have you seen how much a tower costs? Whoa.

upinak on August 6, 2010 at 3:11 PM

-
And I was considering removing the tower next to the trailer at my retreat… I use to have a ham license. Now iot looks like I should re-apply and get a radio. The dem plan… ‘Mad Max and the Obama Zone… where freedom is not an option.’
-
And prepare to be thankful that spray paint is cheap.
-

RalphyBoy on August 6, 2010 at 3:44 PM

I’d rather have the gov’t controlling the toilet paper supply than keeping the internet “fair”

MeatHeadinCA on August 6, 2010 at 3:44 PM

Have you seen how much a tower costs? Whoa.

upinak on August 6, 2010 at 3:11 PM

One can cut a perfectly good antenna and use two or three tall trees and get wonderful results. Haven’t done any Ham radio in years, but cutting antennas is a simple operation…long wire…and trees are free, aren’t they?

coldwarrior on August 6, 2010 at 3:46 PM

Can you hear me now?

tim c on August 6, 2010 at 3:04 PM

Oh, they can HEAR us…they’re just not LISTENING.

search4truth on August 6, 2010 at 3:48 PM

Key West reader- I recently did the same thing. When I found out the CEO of Verizon was out cheerleading for Dumb-0′s socialized medicine, I moved to AT&T and traded in my Blackberry for an iphone4. (And by the way that antenna stuff is pure unadulterated union BS.) Now I hear AT&T is also going to have the exclusive on the new Blackberry. Screw these CEO’s who want to pay their protection money for crony capitalism. We can’t quit the gob’mint but we can still quit them. Let’s roll. I’m sick of these socialists impersonating capitalist CEO’s.

Jayrae on August 6, 2010 at 3:49 PM

where are the 20-something Obamabots? Are they aware their Messiah wants to control their precious internet?

ramrants on August 6, 2010 at 4:21 PM

We can’t quit the gob’mint but we can still quit them. Let’s roll. I’m sick of these socialists impersonating capitalist CEO’s.

Jayrae on August 6, 2010 at 3:49 PM

Trust me, AT&T isn’t any better and I remember Verizon saying that the healthcare bill would cost them a lot of money.

I’ve come to the realization that you can’t quit anyone though. They all support the same things, it’s just some are more vocal about it than others. Coke and Pepsi, doesn’t matter. Verizon and AT&T, doesn’t matter. Google, Microsoft, or Apple, it doesn’t matter.

All of the higher ups are going to be immune to the things that will happen to us, so it really doesn’t matter, they truly are the elite class. Since I’ve come to the realization that it doesn’t matter and my money will be supporting evil regardless of who I choose, I simply choose the best product for the best price.

MobileVideoEngineer on August 6, 2010 at 4:21 PM

Net Neutrality was always a scam being pushed by Google to favor an advertising based model. Now that Google see that approach even work for them, there is no real player favoring it except the hippies.

pedestrian on August 6, 2010 at 4:43 PM

The FCC needs to be cut to an office of about a dozen people. Let them allocate frequencies and nothing else. Nada.

slickwillie2001 on August 6, 2010 at 4:43 PM

What is “net neutrality?”

Censorship. Nothing less. That is what “net neutrality” is really all about.

coldwarrior on August 6, 2010 at 3:34 PM

Net neutrality is not about content. It is the government saying that it is against the law for you to be able to pay an extra fee and getter throughput. There is absolutely no reason for such an absurd law, except in the minds of nutcases who are afraid that some CEO is going to make access to dailykos.com really slow unless you pay them money.

pedestrian on August 6, 2010 at 4:46 PM

Lazarus said the agency’s round of stakeholder meetings had not “generated a robust framework to preserve the openness and freedom of the Internet.” But he added that “all options remain on the table.”

“Any outcome, any deal that doesn’t preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet for consumers and entrepreneurs, will be unacceptable,” he said.

Another government solution in search of a problem in order to enhance the power of the state.

Does anyone really believe that private companies have no interest in “preserving the freedom and openness of the internet”?

And does anyone really believe it will be more free and open when government controls it by fiat for political purposes?

RadClown on August 6, 2010 at 5:07 PM

The GOP will likely make the EPA one of its first targets

J_Crater on August 6, 2010 at 3:01 PM

I want to believe that in the worst way.

listens2glenn on August 6, 2010 at 5:15 PM

The GOP will likely make the EPA one of its first targets

J_Crater on August 6, 2010 at 3:01 PM

I want to believe that in the worst way.

listens2glenn on August 6, 2010 at 5:15 PM

Let’s hope so: The EPA is on the verge of declaring that naturally occurring dust is a pollutant.

slickwillie2001 on August 6, 2010 at 5:28 PM

Just like the car, oil and who knows what next companies. Wait until the private sector creates and perfects them then come in and regulate, tax and attempt to take over.

The government can’t create anything, they can only steal what others have created.

29Victor on August 6, 2010 at 6:13 PM

Censorship. Nothing less. That is what “net neutrality” is really all about.

coldwarrior on August 6, 2010 at 3:34 PM

Amen Brother! Glad to see you’re still keeping your ear to the ground too, this site needs you.

/suck-up off ;)

Maquis on August 6, 2010 at 6:41 PM

Let’s hope so: The EPA is on the verge of declaring that naturally occurring dust is a pollutant.

slickwillie2001 on August 6, 2010 at 5:28 PM

So what’s new?? They’ve already declared naturally-occurring carbon dioxide a pollutant!!!

It’s all just part of their plan to tax you when you inhale and tax you when you exhale.

The EPA should be completely defunded. They are unconstitutionally imposing a state-sponsored religion on us.

landlines on August 7, 2010 at 11:15 AM

See I thought the internet was too big to fail, but if the govt takes over they will make me wrong.

HotAirExpert on August 7, 2010 at 12:14 PM