<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><div>Institutional corruption leading to regulatory capture -- http://www.ethics.harvard.edu/lab/blog/309-institutional-corruption <br></div><div><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;">Who deserves the blame for this wretched combination of
monopolization and profiteering by ever-larger cable and phone
companies? The FCC, that's who. The agency's dereliction dates back to
2002, when under Chairman Michael Powell it reclassified cable modem
services as "information services" rather than "telecommunications
services," eliminating its own authority to regulate them broadly.
Powell, by the way, is now <a href="http://www.ncta.com/who-we-are/leadership" target="_blank">the chief lobbyist in Washington</a> for the cable TV industry, so the payoff wasn't long in coming. <br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><br></div>
<div>President <a class="taxInlineTagLink" id="PEPLT007408" title="Barack Obama" href="http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/barack-obama-PEPLT007408.topic">Obama</a>'s
FCC chairman, Julius Genachowski, moved to shore up the agency's
regulatory defense of net neutrality in 2010. But faced with the
implacable opposition of the cable and telecommunications industry, he
stopped short of reclassifying cable modems as telecommunications
services. The result was the tatterdemalion policy that the court killed
today. It was so ineptly crafted that almost no one in the telecom bar
seemed to think it would survive; the only question was how dead would
it be? The answer, spelled out in the ruling, is: totally.</div>
<div>The court did leave it up to the FCC or <a class="taxInlineTagLink" id="ORGOV0000131" title="U.S. Congress" href="http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/u.s.-congress-ORGOV0000131.topic">Congress</a>
to refashion a net neutrality regime. The new FCC chairman, Tom
Wheeler, has made noises favoring net neutrality, but he also sounds
like someone who's not so committed to the principle. <br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><br></div>
<div>In <a href="http://www.fcc.gov/document/remarks-fcc-chairman-tom-wheeler-ohio-state-university">an important speech</a> in December and <a href="http://www.fcc.gov/page/net-effects-past-present-and-future-impact-our-networks" target="_blank">a long essay</a>
released at the same time, he's seemed to play on both sides. But that
won't work. The only way to defend net neutrality, which prioritizes the
interests of the customer and user over the provider, is to do so
uncompromisingly. Net neutrality can't be made subject to the
"marketplace," as Wheeler suggests, because the cable and telephone
firms control that marketplace and their interests will prevail.
Congress? Don't make me laugh--it's owned by the industry even more than
the FCC.</div><div style="overflow: hidden; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-align: left; text-decoration: none; border: medium none;"><br> <a style="color: #003399;" href="http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-net-neutrality-20140114,0,522106.story#ixzz2qdaRo8C4">http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-net-neutrality-20140114,0,522106.story#ixzz2qdaRo8C4</a><br></div><div style="display: block;" class="yahoo_quoted"> <br> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div dir="ltr"> <font face="Arial" size="2"> On Friday, January 17, 2014 2:28 AM, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote:<br> </font> </div> <div class="y_msg_container">Hi,<br clear="none"><br clear="none">On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:22 AM, ICT
Researcher<br clear="none"><<a shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:ict.researcher@yahoo.com" href="mailto:ict.researcher@yahoo.com">ict.researcher@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br clear="none">> Its the begining of Internet fragmentation and they started it, not rest of<br clear="none">> the world.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">It is nowhere near the beginning of fragmentation. That started long ago.<div class="yqt6087562821" id="yqtfd00675"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"> And opportunity for (an)other powers to assume previous US<br clear="none">> internet leadership?</div><br clear="none">><br clear="none"><br clear="none">Why would any single nation state presume to be a leader. The<br clear="none">Internet has moved us well past the Westpahalian nation-state model.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">What this decision means is still in doubt, the court’s decision<br
clear="none">wasn’t based on a belief that net neutrality itself is a bad thing,<br clear="none">but a view that the FCC implemented its rules in a legally<br clear="none">questionable way.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">It will be appealed and/or the FCC will re-classify ISPs so the rules<br clear="none">won't be legally questionable anymore...but as an ICT Researcher, you<br clear="none">probably know that.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">-- <br clear="none">Cheers,<br clear="none"><br clear="none">McTim<br clear="none">"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A<br clear="none">route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel<br><br></div> </div> </div> </div> </div></body></html>