Obama Picks Net Neutrality Backer As FCC Chief

Ripit writes "President Obama on Tuesday nominated Julius Genachowski as the nation's top telecommunications regulator, picking a campaign adviser who has divided his career between Washington, D.C., political jobs and working as an Internet executive. Genachowski is likely to continue the Democratic push for more Net neutrality regulations, which are opposed by some conservatives and telecommunications providers. He was a top Obama technology adviser and aided in crafting a technology platform that supported Net neutrality rules."

Comments

And then...

[spykemail]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the sentiment behind net neutrality. But rather than just regulating, which we know never goes wrong, why not foster a more competitive market as well? I hear that sometimes helps keep capitalism from sucking.

Re:And then...

[Man On Pink Corner]

The carriers can "compete" using their own money. Not with public funds.

Re:And then...

[Ardeaem]

On the contrary, regulation is what keeps capitalism from destroying itself. Crises at the turn of the twentieth century and now, at the turn of the twenty-first, have confirmed this.

Re:And then...

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

But rather than just regulating, which we know never goes wrong

Oh yeah, just what we need these days, more de-regulation. Do you live under a rock, or have you not noticed an economic depression lately that is caused by total lack of regulation?

why not foster a more competitive market as well?

Competitive market in what? If you propose to let data carriers compete with one another freely, they'll go to bed with big corporations and media companies faster than you can see the dollar signs in their CEOs' eyes. Then loss of net neutrality ensues. If you propose competition between companies that produce said data, then fair enough I suppose.

Re:And then...

[ByOhTek]

The funny thing is, that's the goal of the regulation.

Regulation that encourages competition is a good thing. Lack of net neutrality would force people to pay extra charges to the various telcos to compete, which would reduce competition.

Telcos are already charging their customers, they shouldn't double dip and charge those their customers want to access as well.

Re:And then...

[erroneus]

The problem with the current broadband market is the cherry picking and exclusivity of many areas. While some areas are rich with broadband while others are lucky to have dialup.

Internet service needs to be treated as a utility just like electric power and telephone service. There are plenty of working regulations for telephone and power service and we know from recent history and current events when regulations are removed "to bring about competition" right? Texas and California deregulated power and now Texas and California have VERY high energy rates! That's higher, not lower, even when there is supposedly competition present. The monopoly abuses of phone companies are well documented and while there is some level of competition in phone, there are a lot of nonsense costs associated with phone services abusing customers of every form of phone service.

Capitalism is viewed by many as "that which the market will bear." This lends itself to how much nonsense and abuse the market will bear which is the condition we see today.

Right now, everyone is scrambling for ways to make profit from everything imaginable and if that means erecting some sort of toll gate system on the public interenet, then that is what they are prepared to do unless they are regulated as a utility. You should see the mess that is the ATM (Automated Teller Machine) processing industry. If you wonder why ATM fees are so high, you have to know that there are several links in the processing chain and that everyone in that chain pushes their small fees that ultimately amount to large fees. If the internet were to adopt this model, you'd be paying $2/hr to post on slashdot.

Re:And then...

[furby076]

here's no reason why every urban home can't have access to Comcast, Cox, Time-Warner, et cetera and simply choose which provider they like best.

Sure there is...price control. Just because it's not good for consumer doesn't mean it's not good for someone else. Don't be greedy pay comcast more money. $200 for that phone/internet/cable package is a fair price for a gimped Internet connection, tv connection & phone connection. Don't worry if Google pays comcast a fee you will get full gimp speed to their content.

Re:And then...

[forsey]

I see a lot of comments about regulation being good or bad, some saying it's the cause and some saying the lack of it is the cause. This is just silly.

Regulation is a tool, kind of like a gun, and can be used for good or bad purposes. If you are going to say regulation is bad or good, you should name a specific regulation. Granted there are cases when any regulation is bad, but it's just silly to say it's all bad or all good.

Re:And then...

[squallbsr]

In order for Capitalism to work, there needs to be a free market. When dealing with natural monopolies (and artificial ones like the telecoms), regulation is needed to keep the market somewhat fair because monopolies cannot self-regulate.

Another big issue is that we need a BALANCE between free market and regulation. Too loose of regulations and we melt down Wall St, too much regulation we stifle innovation and growth due to red tape.

Compare working for a mega corporation vs working for a small company. If you need to buy a software package worth $5000, what do you need to do (assuming the companies have the money):

MegaCorp
Those at MegaCorp will need to fill out purchase requests, cost justifications, cost analysis, route the request through 15 different people, have it rejected 3 times because of typos or missing fields on the request.

Small Company
Talk to the boss, purchase the software on the corporate AMEX.

Drawing the analogy to regulation, the more regulation, the harder it is to get things done, the longer it takes and the greater the bureaucracy.

Moral of the Story: We need a balanced system, just enough regulation to keep people honest but still keep out of the way of doing business.

Re:And then...

[Polumna]

I'm afraid you're actually quite wrong, there. The president's job is to do what he was elected to do. Given that the president's entire campaign was based around the word 'change,' you might want to consider that the majority of voters apparently agreed. Therefore it could easily be argued that Obama's job, literally, IS to change that which America has become.

Sorry, I guess I'm just blind.

Re:And then...

[ccarson]

If change entails taking a crap on our freedom of speech then I don't want any part of it. The fairness doctrine is the government telling citizens what they can and can't say. If this is implemented, the greatest part of America will die.

Re:And then...

[d3ac0n]

I'm afraid you're actually quite wrong, there. The president's job is to do what he was elected to do.

I'm afraid YOU are quite wrong.

Regardless of what ANY presidential candidate campaigns on, he IS restricted to the Constitutionally delineated duties and privileges of the Presidency. Including those he has sworn or affirmed upon taking the Oath of Office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Which means that making fundamental change in our society (such as altering the economy and political system from a Capitalistic Representative Republic to a Socialistic Single Party System.) is literally prohibited from even attempting. Not that "The One" won't try it. The "stimulus" package is one such totally unconstitutional example.

All that aside though, I'm not necessarily in disagreement with him on this particular selection, provided that this appointee doesn't overstep his bounds in enforcing Net Neutrality as the ISP's have overstepped their bounds in exploiting the monopolies granted to them by federal/state/local governments. Two wrongs don't make a right, let us all hope that Mr. Genachowski remembers that.

Re:And then...

[FireStormZ]

"The president's job is to do what he was elected to do"

Ummm no, the presidents Job is clearly defined in the constitution, modified by laws from congress and vetted by the supreme court. If the presidents job is to 'do what he was elected to do' than all this complaining about Buh is off mark, after all he was only doing what voters put him in office to do. The idea that because President Obama got 5.4 out of 10 people to vote for him he has cart blanch to make 'change' is disturbing. He is just a man and the constitution is bigger than him.

Re:And then...

[theaceoffire]

If Obama follows the Constitution, that would be the biggest change seen in many years.

Re:And then...

[fl!ptop]

who is going to pay for those DSL upgrades?

from the FCC's website:

Because telephones provide a vital link to emergency services, to government services and to surrounding communities, it has been our nation's policy to promote telephone service to all households since this service began in the 1930s. The USF helps to make phone service affordable and available to all Americans, including consumers with low incomes, those living in areas where the costs of providing telephone service is high, schools and libraries and rural health care providers. Congress has mandated that all telephone companies providing interstate service must contribute to the USF. Although not required to do so by the government, many carriers choose to pass their contribution costs on to their customers in the form of a line item, often called the "Federal Universal Service Fee" or "Universal Connectivity Fee."

could high-speed internet access someday be interpreted to be a "vital link...to government services?" maybe.

there are options for us rural dwellers. there's satellite, which is somewhat expensive and not very fast. there's also the cellular network. an aircard in combination with a wireless router works well, if you can get a signal at your house. some companies offer wireless broadband over the 5.8 spectrum, but you more-or-less need line-of-site to the tower for that. another possibility is broadband-over-powerlines, but i think they suffer from the same fate as dsl, requiring the user be within a certain distance of their "box."

any way you slice it, rural customers will be out of luck for some time to come.

Re:And then...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish I had mod points. Thank you for being a voice of reason among a throng of boisterous idiots.

For those people who disagree, I'd like you to do a few things for me.

• Explain how the FCC, an executive agency, is the same as Congress ("Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech")
• Explain how "the freedom of speech" is the same as "the freedom of speech in any medium you want, even one that isn't owned by you"
• Show me where the Constitution mandates a pure market economy

Thank you.

Re:And then...

[Fallen Seraph]

Spoken like a man who has absolutely no idea how our nation's network infrastructure works.

Ever heard of the "last mile"? The reason many areas in the US have broadband providers holding local monopolies is because running cable to homes is one of the most expensive undertakings you can make. To say that other providers should run cable to homes to compete for a market would be to say "They should spend millions on construction and infrastructure for a slim chance at succeeding in the local market." It's just not cost effective, and it's difficult to justify to investors. Additionally, in many areas there just isn't sufficient interest to warrant this investment because the local population doesn't see the appeal of broadband, even just for upgrading phone lines for DSL.

In my area we have both Fios and Cable broadband, but one of my coworkers, who lives in Queens in NYC, doesn't have any broadband access, because he lives on the other side of a highway, and neither the cable company nor the phone company are willing to run wires a block for him and his neighbors, despite very vocal arguments. But you wanna tell me they'd be willing to spring for thousands of square miles for a population that's still primarily indifferent to the technology? I doubt it.

It's unfortunate, but broadband is very much an "if you build it they will come" technology, where the consumer often doesn't see the benefit of it until they've actually used it. This makes for a very precarious investment for communications companies, and is one of the biggest obstacles to improving our infrastructure.

Re:And then...

[swillden]

If Obama follows the Constitution, that would be the biggest change seen in many years.

I don't think we need to have any fears on that score.

Obama has no interest in following the Constitution.

Re:And then...

[Cerberus7]

The key word you need to remember is "infrastructure." Fiber-optic lines, power lines, roads, sewer systems, railways; these are all infrastructure. It makes as much sense to run multiple sets of power lines owned by multiple companies supplying power from multiple power plants as it does to have multiple roads maintained by multiple companies running in parallel. Infrastructure lends itself naturally to a monopoly, and the only way to control such monopolies from getting out of control is by careful government oversight.

Cars are not infrastructure. Operating systems are not infrastructure. Electronics devices are not infrastructure.

Re:And then...

[LandDolphin]

The Federal Government stopped following the Consitution some time around 1861

Re:And then...

[Curunir_wolf]

I'm afraid you're actually quite wrong, there. The president's job is to do what he was elected to do. Given that the president's entire campaign was based around the word 'change,' you might want to consider that the majority of voters apparently agreed. Therefore it could easily be argued that Obama's job, literally, IS to change that which America has become. Sorry, I guess I'm just blind.

No. Read the Constitution. The president's job is spelled out right there. He's not allowed to go beyond the responsibilities and authorities that have been granted to him. It doesn't matter what he said during the campaign. America is a Republic, not a democracy. Voters aren't allowed to trample individual, inherent rights of the people, no matter how many of them vote to do so.

Re:And then...

[Endo13]

By your reasoning Verizon and Comcast should merge, rather than have separate phoneline and TV lines, because it's cheaper. However I argue it's actually more expensive, because you take away (1) freedom of choice (2) power of the people to run their own lives (see 1) and (3) create a monopoly which is inherently non-innovative, controlling, and tends to overprice.

No, not if you fully follow his reasoning. The key factor here is that Verizon and Comcast are from two very different sectors of the communications industry. It's only in the last 5-10 years that they're started overlapping significantly, and they both had huge infrastructure in place before that. It's not profitable for them to merge, because while they offer similar services, they use significantly different technology to do so. Comcast's infrastructure is not at all beneficial to Verizon, and Verizon's is equally useless to Comcast. However, it's profitable for a large DSL company like Verizon to buy up smaller DSL companies, because they're now buying additional useful infrastructure in a market with some proven customers, instead of throwing their money out on the line without knowing if there will be sufficient customers there or not.

There's a lot more that could be said here, but most of it has already been said or at least implied. However, it seems you're ignoring it. So I'll just reiterate the most important point: communications cannot be compared with any other industry (when talking about competition) because the barrier of entry is out of necessity prohibitively expensive. Consider: right now, your options for creating long-distance communications include cables, satellites, or wireless towers. Cables means acquiring permits to install it in all kinds of places, permits to dig up roads and all kinds of other things, not to mention the cost of miles of expensive cable, the cost of all the equipment to install it, the time and cost of the installation, etc. Satellites... well, we already know that's not cheap. Wireless towers are easily the cheapest route, but the tech just isn't there yet for high-speed capacity that truly competes with DSL or Cable. And even when that tech is ready, you still have to either rent space on existing towers (hopefully they'll work with your tech), or buy or rent land to build your own.

Building a car dealership or a restaurant or even an automobile factory is peanuts compared to building a communications system.

Good

[whisper_jeff]

Subject says it all.

The real new threat from ISP's

[elrous0]

Thanks to recent efforts by the RIAA/MPAA, the threat now isn't just that ISP's will throttle P2P, it's that they will outright BLOCK it (and any sites related to it). Their counterpart in the UK has already succeeded in this effort with most of their ISP's, and you can bet it will happen here too soon. If this guy doesn't step in with some legal protections (and threats) for these ISP's, the days of typing www.thepiratebay.org into your browser and getting any message besides "This site has been blocked for copyright infringement" are numbered.

Just like arsenic keeps you healthy

[hwyhobo]

On the contrary, regulation is what keeps capitalism from destroying itself. Crises at the turn of the twentieth century and now, at the turn of the twenty-first, have confirmed this.

Please explain how forcing banks to make bad loans in the name of "social justice" proves that regulation keeps capitalism from destroying itself.

Re:Just like arsenic keeps you healthy

[cduffy]

s/social justice/profit/

Re:Just like arsenic keeps you healthy

[MobyDisk]

The government didn't force anyone to make bad loans. If you are a loan officer and you made a bad loan, it isn't because the government held a gun to your back.

It is amazing how on one hand you hear "The government made the banks do it through regulation" and on the other you hear "Deregulation of banks made them do stupid things!" Which is it? Did the government tell them to make the loans? Or did the government fail to tell them not to make the loans?

Neither: The banks made loans based on their own flawed risk calculations and poor valuation of future property values. Capitalism is based on the power of greed, but it assumes that the greedy ones are also smart. In this case, they weren't.

Re:Just like arsenic keeps you healthy

[Joe the Lesser]

On top of my point, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may have been encouraged to lend to lower credit families, but the crisis would have happened even if they didn't exist because the other unregulated institutions went about it with much more gusto.

Fannie and Freddie's subprime loans were shown to be on the more respectable end as opposed to the other banks who pushed their mortgage brokers to get loans no matter what the risk.

The only thing Fannie and Freddie really shows is that the government endorsed the practice, but the fat cats of Wall Street made Fannie and Freddie's bad loans look likes child's play.

Re:Just like arsenic keeps you healthy

[magamiako1]

Or we could regulate areas that require regulation and prevent pricing from being abnormally inflated due to a lack of competition in the market.

Re:Just like arsenic keeps you healthy

[antibryce]

Fannie and Freddie purchased the subprime loans from other lenders, creating a huge market for them overnight. Why not issue a subprime loan if you can turn around and sell it the next day? You keep all the initial fees and assume none of the risk.

Re:Just like arsenic keeps you healthy

[furby076]

The CRA wasn't about getting loans to minorities who couldn't afford it; the CRA was about getting loans to minorities who COULD afford it but were being discriminated against. There were many minorities who could afford these loans and were being told they couldn't get the loan on spec. This was sometimes done by unconscious racism or conscious racism by people who didn't want "colored folk" from moving into their community

Now if some mortgage underwriter took this law to mean "give people who can't afford mortgages a mortgage" or "Hey now i have an excuse to sell an extra mortgage and raise my commission" that is not the fault of the gov't that is the fault of the mortgage underwriter who abused the system (shocker).

"High risk borrowers" is a very loose statement. It's akin to saying "How much do I love you? I love you THIS much". The science of mortgage lending is more art then science - if you don't believe me speak to someone who is or was in the lending industry...oh wait, you are.
So before talking about "pesky facts" make sure you don't skew them.

Not for nothing, this statement...

The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless.

...Is extremely racist.

Re:Just like arsenic keeps you healthy

[commodore64_love]

>>>Obviously, some libtard got some mod points and figured he'd do his best to quell the dissenting voice of truth

But don't you know? Free speech only applies if it's the *correct* speech. If it's not politically correct, then it may be censored.

Re:Just like arsenic keeps you healthy

[furby076]

It IS the fault of the government if the politicians unjustly prosecuted various underwriters when they turned-down loans. ("But I did it because he only gets minimum wage!" "No you did it because you're racist; we're dragging you to court.") Other underwriters would observe this, decide it wasn't worth the hassle, and therefore approved risky loans just to stay out of jail.

The fed did not go after folks who rejected one person; they would go after a lending institution that showed a trend. If a bank had a dramatically high rejection of minority loans (compared to non-minority loans for the area) then the fed would look at the bank. The bank could either justify their decisions by showing the reasoning for minority rejections, or the bank could get fined. So if the bank was able to show the declined minority loans were from those who could not afford the loans they wanted or had a terrible credit scores then the bank orgnization was fine. This is not hard to prove: Bank statement showing wage earnings (including job history), credit score, & account history with banks.

This is one of the reasons why mortgage underwriters are in the back-office of most banks instead of dealing with customers directly. They do this so there can be little argument of racism. Cut the FUD...it wasn't a witch-hunt.

This has no similarity to do with the DTV extension. Congress realizes this is not optimal, but they are trying to cater to those (typically in lower economic households) who did not get a converter (could not afford it or could not get a device because they ARE sold out).

Re:Just like arsenic keeps you healthy

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Regulation is what CREATED this crisis.

You then go on to explain how the government actions made the crisis worse, but don't explain how they created it.

The truth is, the government did create the crisis by rearranging the tax burden such that taxes on the high end did not compensate for wealth condensation resulting in runaway wealth disparity. Then they prolonged the problem by promoting unsafe lending, but they didn't need to do a lot because the banks were running out of people to loan to since half the country no longer had any net wealth.

We need to stop acting like we can control things.

But we can control a lot of things and have to the benefit of mankind. The problem is when the control is directed by a few for their own benefit instead of the benefit of all.

Yes this applies to markets, because they too follow natural rhythms. What would have been a minor recession in 2000-1 is now turning into a depression...

What causes a depression is not lack of wealth, but lack of stability. Stability fails when wealth disparity is too high because most people can no longer be strategic in spending. It's what happened during the great depression too. To solve the problem we need tax reform not deregulation. All deregulation does is allow wealth disparity to be leveraged more effectively to make the problem worse. Ideally it is not needed, but we don't live in an ideal world. Deregulation is part of what made this economic crisis as bad as it is.

Re:Just like arsenic keeps you healthy

[Ninnle Labs, LLC]

I'm not sure why you're so hung up on the word required - the government doesn't have to require anything in order to move a market.

Because that was the claim of the person I was originally responding to?

The Democrats pushed through legislation requiring banks to make "no down payment" loans in order to extend housing to as many low-income Americans as possible

Did you even bother to read my post that you originally responded to?

And once that market's moving, the capitalist system pretty much ensures that everyone's going to jump on board, whether required to or not.

But if they weren't required to make these loans it invalidates all the claims of people saying they were requiring the banks to make these loans.

In short, I've heard a lot of arguments that the CRA isn't at fault because it didn't hold a gun to anyone's head and force them to issue a bad mortgage ... no, it didn't, but there are a lot more ways to motivate people than guns, so while that statement may be true, it in no way proves that the CRA wasn't at least a contributing factor to the current crisis.

I don't think anyone is saying CRA didn't contribute to the crisis, I surely didn't. And in fact many studies on this subject show that the loans made due to CRA were actually a minority percentage of all the bad ones. My only point was to ask the person to back up their claims that the CRA did require banks to make these loans which so far no one has been able to do.

Pardon my cynicism, but....

[drdanny_orig]

...it's just a matter of time before he caves to lobbyist $$$.

In otherwords

[jgtg32a]

So its a completely BS and loaded term, like fair, that can be used to side step the actual debate?

Lets try to make intelligent arguments. Please leave these kind of arguments for the politicians.

Re:something they forgot...

[DragonTHC]

Feinstein, Biden, Boucher just to name a few.

Proof: DRM

So, everyone is making it seem like it's only republicans against Net Neutrality.

Re:[CITATION NEEDED]

[flitty]

I like to think that a self-regulating body would come about if we abolished the FDA.

Lets take a recent example. How did Mortgage backed investments get so overvalued and rated at AAA status, even though by all accounts they were overvalued and overrated. Oh yeah, it's because the rating agency was unregulated and was Paid based on the rating they gave the investment.

People should have the freedom to use unsafe products if they really want to.

Thanks, you just killed my neice and nephew who are allergic to peanuts. If the peanut recall that spread for weeks and weeks taught us anything, it's that we aren't buying directly from the local guy anymore. Suppliers barely know where their supplies come from, or where their suppliers get their supplies from. Also, without a regulatory agency that is impartial and looking out for the consumer, cost is the only thing that rules. A milk company could use melamine for months, paying off the "self-regulators" until the "good milk" suppliers are driven out of business, because their milk costs more. Then we are left with a cheap substitute for milk that is harmful. I'm simplifying here, but when it comes to Food, I really really appreciate an outside group verifying that my food isn't full of harmful substances.

News vs editorial

[Roadkills-R-Us]

I'm disgusted by the blurb for this one. Since it's supposed to be news, not editorial, can we do away with the slant? That's one of the reasons I gave up on mainstream media long ago, most of them write editorial commentary and call it news.

"...opposed by some conservatives and telecommunications providers..."

And supported by plenty of conservatives as well.

Re:ask the peanut salmonella victims

[DrLang21]

Yes because clearly the peanut salmonella incident could have been prevented if we had some federal agency tasked with regulating the food and drug supply for safety. Clearly.

Re:[CITATION NEEDED]

[Anonymous Coward]

They or their parents killed them for feeding them peanuts

Well, actually, they were feeding them applesauce, but to save $0.05 in water and $0.52 in labor, the company quit washing down the chopping blades between ingredients, and they got the first batch of applesauce after the last batch of peanut butter.

Re:Huh??

[MrMista_B]

Why does anyone think it would?

Re:The Correct Post Office Analogy

[Qzukk]

So when emergency call is held up because WOW released the latest patch and everyone in my neighborhood is downloading will you still feel the same way?

I hope you're using the ISP's own VoIP offering to make that call, it'd be terrible if something happened to your emergency call via Vonage.

Re:Was 9/11 an invasion?

[Lendrick]

Should I also join you in the assumption that a rebellion or invasion didn't take place on 2001-09-11?

9/11 was a tragedy, a horrific crime, and a terrorist act. That said, calling it an "invasion" is beyond a stretch. It's interesting the way you phrased this; you're essentially making an implicit association between saying that the September 11th attacks weren't an invasion and trivializing the deaths of 3,000 people. Clever, but I'm not falling for it. This is precisely the sort of thinking that we need to guard against in order to preserve our freedoms.

Nations become dictatorships through a perpetual state of "national emergency" all the time. Terrorism isn't a "new" threat, despite what people may say about it. The threat of terrorism has been around since before recorded history, yet every time a major terrorist attack happens and someone in the government wants to use it as an excuse to increase their power, they claim that it's a New Kind Of Threat.

We're never going to be completely safe from outside threats, no matter what we do. Denying our own freedoms because of that is un-American.