Former FCC Boss Turned Top Cable Lobbyist Michael Powell Blames Everyone But Himself For Current Net Neutrality Mess
from the some-of-us-remember dept
You might recall that top cable industry lobbyist Michael Powell, formerly head of the FCC, got much of the current Title II debate rolling back in 2002 when he reclassified cable broadband as an "information service." This effectively opened the door to a massive era of broadband deregulation Powell and friends at the time insisted would usher forth an immense new wave of broadband competition. If you've checked your broadband bill or oh, stepped outside lately, you may have noticed that this utopian broadband landscape never materialized.A huge part of Powell's justification for rampant deregulation (or really, the need for any meaningful regulators whatsoever) was that broadband over powerline was going to make the market so damn competitive that regulators really wouldn't be needed. Powell repeatedly ignored engineers who stated broadband over powerline caused massive radio interference in trial markets, and wasn't suitable for even a niche broadband deployment technology. As such, Powell's "great broadband hope" never took flight, and what we wound up with was a more potent and uncompetitive broadband duopoly than ever before.
Now heading the cable industry's biggest lobbying operation, the NCTA, Powell has popped up with a little bit of revisionist history, as he heavily criticizes the current FCC's shift back to Title II. According to Powell, the cable industry will most certainly sue over the FCC's new rules, and he blames everybody but himself for turning net neutrality into a "partisan issue":
"He suggested that after the principles became a declaratory ruling under the chairmanship of his successor, Kevin Martin, it they were probably applied in a "reckless way" [the Comcast/BitTorrent decision] that led to being overturned in court," which he said put a bigger spotlight on it, after which it became a 2008 campaign issue for Obama, then was promulgated as a rule and political imperative, and that is where he thinks the issue "got off the rail."Of course Powell ignores the fact that if he hadn't massively deregulated the broadband industry in the first place based on flimsy justifications and bad data, we likely wouldn't be having this conversation. Powell then continues with the idea that it's everybody else's fault for net neutrality becoming a partisan issue (like oh, claiming neutrality is "Obamacare for the Internet"):
"Asked to make the "Republican" case for network neutrality, Powell said Republicans are "no different from Democrats in that they want their messages to be heard," and Republican kids want to go to Nickelodeon, and everybody wants to use their iPhone. These services and apps are not partisan, he said. It was the President's "interjection" into the issue that turned it into "party political partisanship," Powell said.He's half right. As we've noted countless times, Democrats and Republicans alike support net neutrality, and a growing number of conservatives are supporting Title II because they realize it's the best available option in a market that's simply not going to be competitive any time soon. The difference is, if you back away from partisan pattycake for a moment, you'll notice that Powell's a huge part of the reason that competition doesn't exist. And as cable's top lobbyist he's still busy pretending the industry's hyper competitive while defending practices like unnecessary usage caps -- directly aimed at abusing the lack of competition he helped facilitate.
Republican, Democrat or aardvark, it's unfortunate that nobody in this country appears particularly interested in somehow documenting and remembering what people have previously said and done; it might just come in handy sometime when trying to determine credibility.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: blame, competition, deregulation, michael powell, net neutrality, open internet, partisan, politics
Companies: ncta
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Typical Politician
This here sums it up.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1995-03-07/news/os-ed-charley-reese-545-column-07111120110711 _1_congress-votes-deficits-bureaucracy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why do we want the net regulated?
The lack of competition in connectivity stems more from a lack of infrastructure (view any converage map), and the time it has taken to build, as well as continually upgrade.
My personal concern over any regulation is that once regulation is in place, major initiative must go through the "Mother May I" exercise with the regulating agency, who has no impetus to act quickly. Often, in regulated industries, the agency will require massive amounts of justifying documentation, will panel a committee to study it to death, then out of a sense of "fairness" will invite comment from all competitors, and after careful consideration will rule in favor of whomever pays them the most.
Look at how many regulated industries are nothing more than blocks to competition - taxis vs. Uber for example. Once there are barriers to entry, the existing players can solidify there positions and lobby for regulations more favorable to themselves.
In unregulated industries, people can vote with their feet or their wallets. When was the last known instance of a consumer successfully petitioning a regulatory agency?
I have been on the internet since the early days of 300 baud dial-up, and I remember the frustration of the pay-by-the-minute connections. We no longer have that problem becuase technology advanced. Are the complaints we field today likely to disappear with the technical advances of tomorrow?
Many of the complaints I have heard concern those who pay more for better service. So. Name anything else in the world where that does not occur. More to the point, though: Those who paid $100 for calculators, or $4000 for VCRs, or $10,000 for camcorders in the early days, subsidized the development of the technology that made those same things available to everyone else at a fraction of that cost.
So I end with this: can anyone do an honest pro-con benefit analysis as to why regulation is better than free-market innovation, because I the hyperbole of who is good vs. who is bad serves no one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Why do we want the net regulated?
1. Those that bust up monopolies and promote competition.
2. Those that protect monopolies and inhibit competition.
Unfortunately, many regulatory agencies over the years have been transformed from #1 to #2.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Why do we want the net regulated?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Why do we want the net regulated?
We don't. Title II and net neutrality are not about regulating the internet. They're about putting very basic non-discrimination rules on *internet access providers* to keep *THEM* from "regulating" the internet in terms of how everyone gets to use it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
He lost all credibility with me. Its hard to detect but I feel this statement shows he is not for a fair internet. Well, we all know that, but his examples show bias and/or ignorance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Why do we want the net regulated?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Why do we want the net regulated?
A Big problem for me is the constantly shifting meaning of "net neutrality" - including what current and former administrations claim they want, and what their designated agencies say they will implement. Since no one speaks in english, and every bill is a mountain of unreadable debt, I am naturally suspect of all of it.
Is it possible to just say "Everybody back away. We are not going to touch anything?"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Why do we want the net regulated?
are you saying with the current 'unregulated' market, we can vote with our feet?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Why do we want the net regulated?
"I am still unclear as to why Techdirt extolls the virtues of regulating the internet."
I can't speak for Techdirt, but here's my perspective. The issue isn't whether or not the internet will be regulated. It already is, by the major ISPs. The question is who will be doing the regulating. The major ISPs have proven that they are incapable of doing an adequate job of it. Perhaps the FCC would do even slightly better under Title II.
You're right, that Title II isn't the ideal solution. The ideal solution would be a marketplace that had some sort of effective competition. However, that's plainly impossible to achieve with the current situation, so Title II becomes a reasonable fallback position.
"The lack of competition in connectivity stems more from a lack of infrastructure"
No, it stems from an effective monopoly on the infrastructure.
"In unregulated industries, people can vote with their feet or their wallets."
Except when it comes to broadband. For most people, they have one or maybe two options to get broadband service. I myself would dearly love to leave Comcast, but there's literally nowhere else for me to go.
"When was the last known instance of a consumer successfully petitioning a regulatory agency?
This actually happens quite often. It just doesn't usually make headlines when it does.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Why do we want the net regulated?
Yes, thats the idea. If we do nothing, they (the isps) will touch everything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Why do we want the net regulated?
I would appreciate if you could spell out the issue in detail, because I find this whole mess confusing. What, exactly are the counter-claims?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Why do we want the net regulated?
I know there have been several attempts by municipalities to take ownership of wired/wireless pipes, but generally those have failed because they weren't willing to devote budget to support them, and ultimately the went back into private hands.
The game changer is always the new technology on the horizon - the unexpected. Think about how many 3rd world countries bypassed the cost of landlines and went straight to cellular.
I've always maintained that technology ultimately move the power into the hands of those who use it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Why do we want the net regulated?
I am sure you are a safe person in that you wouldn't kill someone with you own hands, but I can see your fox news mentality showing through.
"however, I am still unclear as to why Techdirt extolls the virtues of regulating the internet."
Thats the kindof logic trick to which I am referring.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Why do we want the net regulated?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
...Obamacare for the Internet...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Why do we want the net regulated?
So I see your point. But the question is what is most likely to "fix" it - technological innovation, or government regulation.
I tend to view regulation as a collaboration between government and big business in a way that serves them both, and us not at all.
I came out of the era of big iron in the 70's when IBM ruled supreme, and everyone called for them to be regulated. Then these little unheard of companies called "Apple" and "Microsoft" changed everything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Why do we want the net regulated?
Innovation doesn't come for your precious monopolies, but saying these monopolies cannot discriminate (which they have done and will do if allowed) will inspire and allow innovation to bubble up. this might be hard for you if you are a trickle down guy, but bubble-up is much better.
This situation was similar in the 70's. Think about hooking up your 300 baud modem at home. Did ma bell allow this, Techinically, no fucking way, your were supposed to tell them if you intended to do that (did you?). In fact, you couldn't even buy your own phone and hook it up. Look what happened when this was opened up. So your own example only supports the current efforts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Why do we want the net regulated?
Good, then you understand the whole problem. There is no realistic "vote with your feet" option. The only solution to the situation appears to be governmental.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Why do we want the net regulated?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Parting Thoughts
2. I rarely believe government is the answer. Even the best policies eventually get amended. Then they are no longer the best policies, but it literally takes an act of congress to get rid of them. Once you start down that road...
3. "The only solution to the situation appears to be governmental." Do you mean the spying, data gathering, property-seizing, money-wasting, corruption riddled government? Or is there a different one I don't know about? Do you read any of the other daily articles here? Why does anyone think that THIS time, they are going to get it right, and the implementation will be flawless.
4. Any and all regulation to "punish" the terrible, awful, no-good, very bad, cheating, swindling, (adjective of your choice) companies, never punishes the companies. They pass on the cost, and the consumer suffers.
5. Historically, innovation has proved the undoing of every monopoly. Look how digital media has broken the strangle-hold of publishing houses and music studios; micro-lending and crowd-funding have provided alternative to the banking industry. Before that, the automobile changed the dynamic of the all-powerful railroad industry. I will put my faith in creativity and a garage full of pissed-off innovators rather than bureaucracy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Parting Thoughts
Yep, that one. But look what the alternative is: spying, data gathering, property-seizing, money-wasting, corruption riddled ISPs. At least we have some sort of leverage, no matter how slight, with the government. It's more than we have with the telcos.
"Why does anyone think that THIS time, they are going to get it right, and the implementation will be flawless."
Nobody is saying that it will, and I doubt anyone thinks that.
"Any and all regulation to "punish" the terrible, awful, no-good, very bad, cheating, swindling, (adjective of your choice) companies, never punishes the companies."
It's not about punishing anybody at all. It's about getting the major ISPs to stop being abusive.
"Historically, innovation has proved the undoing of every monopoly."
Not every one. Many monopolies have survived or become more deeply entrenched when innovation has presented them challenges. However, you're right that innovation can change the game. The problem is that you can't rely on that. You can't know when the game will change, it might be decades. You can't know that the changing game won't just make the whole situation even worse.
If some miracle event happens that saves us all, then there's still no harm in going Title II -- it will just make the classification irrelevant.
So, in the end, Title II is a case of "it can't make anything worse, and it might make things better."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Parting Thoughts
Isn't that like saying if the Standard Oil trust had not been forcibly broken up by the US government a century ago, it would have eventually died off in another thousand years or two when nuclear fusion makes petroleum obsolete?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Why do we want the net regulated?
...is not a happenstance. It is deliberate FUD. NN was fairly easily defined a half-decade back. And under that definition, every citizen would have been in favor of it.
So the lobbies have confused the definition, to link it more closely to "regulating the Internet" and "goverment hands all over the net".
This has been a successful clouding of the issue, to the point where you have demonstrated their success. You see NN as a gov't grab of control of a "free market".
You wrote, "can anyone do an honest pro-con benefit analysis as to why regulation is better than free-market innovation." A fair question to ask, but your premise is faulty. The alternative is NOT a FREE MARKET.
THE CURRENT OPTIONS ARE NOT: NN OR A FREE MARKET.
THE CURRENT OPTIONS ARE: NN OR A BIG-ISP-CONTROLLED MARKET.
Ours is a market will all the signs of market failure, largely related to oligopoly, duopoly, or monopoly. This is inherent in the "utility nature" of the service, which, at its most basic level, is a dirt-and-shovel industry that requires digging up roads and boulevards to lay fiber or cable. The last mile is just too expensive to expect multiple competitors in that space.
We were once competitive. We had something called UNE-P for a while. That 1996 law required last mile carriers to lease their last mile lines to competitors...and for a brief moment in time , we had broadband competition in the US. It took a few years to get started, then you'd see companies like Covad competing with AT&T for DSL business using AT&T's last mile copper. Just as it was succeeding, we had United States Telecom Association v. FCC, decided on May 24, 2002, which killed UNE-P. Who was against UNE-P? Well, the Telcos, for sure, but also our friend Michael Powell who wrote this: http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/rich-tehrani/uploads/une-p-powell.pdf. Basically, Powell says, "Sure, UNE-P is OK, I guess...but market based competition at every infrastructure level is better. So that's what I want instead." As Karl wrote, an example was his silly fascination with BPL, and his fantasy that THIS would provide the needed competition for a working market.
The EU, however, picked up on our lead with UNE-P and ran with it. Since, the USA's experiment with new infrastructure-based competition has fallen entirely flat, while the EU is extremely competitive with multiple broadband providers for every home, lower prices, and incredible 30 euro bundles of phone, mobile phone, TV, and Internet.
NN regulations, or Title II are not perfect, and nobody at Techdirt is ever going to say so. Title II is currently the least worst choice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I tried to make this point toward the beginning of this little dust-up, but I think you said it better.
Every industry starts as a collection of freelancers - from wildcat oil men to garage-office code writers. Eventually somebody starts to make money, then they consolidate the industry, and the giants are born. Hence the oligopolies, duopolies, or monopolies you mentioned.
Good luck on preventing that, nobody has yet.
Rosneft is mostly owned by the Russian government, Lukoil is mostly private. Sinopec is Chinese owned. Our own oil companies are mostly private but with government regulation as Anonymous Coward pointed out. Yet private or governmental, regulated or not, can anyone identify a single difference between any of them? Once you get to that size, everything starts to look the same.
Interesting history on UNE-P. I was not aware of that.
It's easy to pick up the sense of frustration: Innovation takes time and is unpredictable. Regulation promises quicker response, but I fear longer-term consequences.
Consider this: when was the last time you used a phone book? Right, me either. But part of the 1984 Bell System divestiture, required every baby-bell and baby-bell wannabe to print a phone book.
So here we are 3 decades later with massive print runs that go from deliver truck to dumpster because nobody knows how to turn off the obsolete regulation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
And so I don't just get one phone book that I promptly throw away, I get three. Two are entirely free-market driven, because the ad revenue still exceeds the cost to produce and distribute.
But as soon as they are not profitable, expect the Bells to mount a successful campaign to end that regulation, and make the phone books a "by request" service for individual customers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Why do we want the net regulated?
They could disappear with the technical advances of yesterday. However they won't become of monopolies and duopolies created and continually pressed for by the big cable companies. Google Fiber doesn't do anything particularly different technologically. The difference is they're actually interested in building the fastest network connections technology currently allows. They're shaking things up not because they're making some disruptive innovation, but rather because they're providing a modicum of competition into some markets. And we've already seen some of the problems and limitations of them attempting to break into the market.
As for waiting for "the technical advances of tomorrow" to magically appear and fix things, that's what Michael Powell claimed would happen 13 years ago. We're still waiting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Why do we want the net regulated?
Screw theory. We've got the real world. Which has worked better for consumers? Waiting, or UNE-P competition over boring-old-DSL?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Why do we want the net regulated?
Leaving it alone means leaving the duopoly in place. The duopoly is the problem because it hogs the supply and restricts the demand-side from making a choice between themselves and other suppliers. Take it or leave it is not a choice, that's why you can't leave it to the market to sort this out; it can't because it's hobbled by the duopoly.
NOW do you understand?
The notion of the free market is a capitalist's pipe dream. In practice, unchecked capitalism tends towards monopoly and protectionism of incumbents. If you want the market to be free you need to encourage competition by restricting protectionist practices. Companies won't do that by themselves and consumers can't make them by switching to someone else if there's no one else to switch to and they can't do without the service.
Therefore, to make capitalism work for both consumers and competitors you have to regulate to end anti-competitive practices. Can we do it now, please?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-14/is-net-neutrality-obamacare-for-the-internet-o r-what-
I just wish more people would pay attention to him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Parting Thoughts
And I've yet to see an example of that being true.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Why do we want the net regulated?
It's especially a narrow view to hold when we're talking about broadband, which isn't a free market.
With the very real physical last mile nature of telecom, you're simply going to have regulation. The question is, what kind of regulation do you want? End product of regulatory capture that designs laws that only benefit large duopolies? Or regulations built with some thought toward keeping the Internet as an open, creative, and innovative platform with consumer welfare at the top of the list?
Title II, is the best available option short of waiting for duopolists to magically decide to open up their networks to additional competitors resulting in eroded revenues (not happening).
In telecom, saying you want regulators to pack it in and go home is saying you want to leave things precisely as they are, since the nature of telecom is that with mono/duopolists in control of the last mile, nothing's changing until they're forced to change.
You need some rules in play to ensure they don't abuse the last mile. Having no rules isn't an option. The question then becomes, what rules do you want?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Why do we want the net regulated?
Deregulating everything and waiting for magic to occur may work for some sectors, but it simply isn't a realistic option when talking about telecom.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Why do we want the net regulated?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Why do we want the net regulated?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Parting Thoughts
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Parting Thoughts
(*) In fact, given consumer electronics practices, one box would do everything: satellite (broadcast and sat-phone), mesh wireless relate, local WiFi, etc.
There are, of course, limitations, notably weather effects. If rain or snow are coming down hard enough to affect visibility, they may well affect wireless transmission. As I see it, we are in the middle of a messy interregnum before the telephone landlines get taken over by the local water works. In the long run, water/sewage has a tendency to absorb other kinds of public utilities.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090713/1916365532.shtml#c105
Water is very important, even if it is not very profitable to businessmen. The recent Freedom Industries/West Virginia American Water debacle in Charleston WV is a textbook example of why water supply should not be privatized. Normal business corner-cutting put a couple of hundred thousand people at risk of poisoning. The United States Army had to step in to provide essential drinking water, the same as they did after the earthquake in Haiti.
Incidentally, I feel comfortable with my local postman. He is a splendid little man who reminds me of nothing so much as a Appalachian version of a Queen's Own Gurkhas Subadar-Major. I can easily imagine him fighting off bandits intent on stealing the United States Mail. I resent your attempts to make him into a bogeyman.
http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_gravehundred.htm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Net Neutrality Mess
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why do we want the net regulated?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Parting Thoughts
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why do we want the net regulated?
Definition of madness and all that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]