Obama Nominates New FCC Commissioner

[Modelworks]

Well there goes broadband reform.
She is qualified all right. Qualified to keep the telecoms happy.


http://www.dslreports.com/show...CC-Commissioner-102223

The President has announced the appointment of Mignon Clyburn to the FCC. Clyburn is a commissioner on the South Carolina Public Service Commission and the daughter of Representative James Clyburn (D-SC), who has a history of voting against network neutrality.

Clyburn brings some interesting expertise to the FCC, as before her stint as a South Carolina regulator, she was publisher and general manager of the Coastal Times, a weekly newspaper in Charleston, from 1984 to 1998. Verizon for one seems pretty happy with the pick:

"Commissioner Clyburn is a well-qualified candidate, and her experience will be a welcomed asset as the commission moves forward with the critical work of developing the right policies to achieve the full potential and benefits of broadband. We look forward to working with her."

The National Cable & Telecommunications Association also approves her "pragmatism":

We congratulate Ms. Clyburn on her nomination and look forward to working with her on the important issues before the FCC," said NCTA President Kyle McSlarrow.

"As a long-time member of the South Carolina Public Service Commission, Mignon Clyburn brings an insightful and pragmatic perspective to the complex policy issues that the FCC is tackling in today's dynamic telecommunications environment. Ms. Clyburn's extensive experience with intergovernmental groups such as NARUC will make her an invaluable asset to the Commission."

Progressives are wary, however. Art Brodsky of Public Knowledge suggests that Clyburn has a history of being very cozy with AT&T, according to incumbent competitors in the Carolinas:

As one telecom attorney with experience in southern state put it, if a competitive carrier went to the South Carolina commission to argue that the sky was blue, and AT&T (the former BellSouth) argued the sky was purple, the PSC would rule in favor of purple. The Bell companies have an unrivaled story of success in the South Carolina regulatory system and legislature, as they do in many southern states.

The New America Foundation's (heavily funded by Google) Sascha Meinrath shares similar concerns:

The dominant feeling is that she is extremely tight with the telecom incumbents and that having her on the FCC will all but ensure a stalemate that will prevent any meaningful telecom reforms from being passed. To me, this seems strange since so many of us on the Technology, Media, & Telecom advisory committee during the campaign were looking forward to much needed and innovative reforms once the new FCC was in place.

Given the FCC already has the reputation of an agency that believes AT&T and Verizon (not the public) are their primary constituents, Clyburn may not bring the kind of progressive shift at the FCC many are hoping for. Of course the jury will remain out until new FCC boss Julius Genachowski sees Congressional approval, a full FCC gets stocked and seated, and the revamped commission starts showing us exactly what they're made of.

http://saschameinrath.com/2009...saster_public_interest

The dominant feeling is that she is extremely tight with the telecom incumbents and that having her on the FCC will all but ensure a stalemate that will prevent any meaningful telecom reforms from being passed. To me, this seems strange since so many of us on the Technology, Media, & Telecom advisory committee during the campaign were looking forward to much needed and innovative reforms once the new FCC was in place.

If this is true, President Obama would have really sold the public interest down the river. Either way, even objectively this looks like a traditional "inside baseball" quid-pro-quo -- appointing the daughter of a powerful congressman to score political points just doesn't look good. And there's the issue that the cable and broadcasting industry are very excited for this nominee -- so much so that it has a lot of folks worried about how independent Ms. Clyburn will be vis-a-vis these incumbents' interests.

What I had heard is that her first choices of jobs were all involving the DoE; but having failed to secure a position at the Department of Energy, the FCC Commissionership was the "booby prize." Given how little is actually known about Ms. Clyburn's positions on key telecommunications issues and her lack of experience in this area, one cannot help but wonder why she's been chosen for such a critically important post.

With nothing less than the future of telecommunications riding on the choices this nominee would be making, it leaves me deeply concerned about the future of the FCC and it's efficacy in addressing a host of problems that have continued to worsen due to it's lax oversight and its abdication of responsibility to adequately regulate to maximize the public interest.

 

[OCGuy]

The good news is she probably didnt pay her taxes, so we have nothing to be worried about.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: OCguy
The good news is she probably didnt pay her taxes, so we have nothing to be worried about.

ZING!

 

[rudder]

First order of business is to push back the digital transtition from June 12th to sometime in 2011 and $900 billion for more converters.

 

[frostedflakes]

Guess we'll have to wait and see how she actually does the job, but her background doesn't bode well for those who were hoping for a more consumer-oriented FCC.

 

[Lemon law]

Gotta agree with frostedflakes.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Well there goes broadband reform.

[/quote]

I am not real sure what reform is needd the broadband arena. Both the cablecos(docsys 3) and telcos(fttp and fttn) are constantly upgrading their networks. The only people being left out are rural folks and they will likely be covered by the next wireless being developed by the telcos.

Competition between telcos and cablecos has never been stronger. They are all offering video/voice/internet.

 

[MotF Bane]

Change we can fucking believe in? Nope, more bedding down with the corporations.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Well there goes broadband reform.

I am not real sure what reform is needd the broadband arena. Both the cablecos(docsys 3) and telcos(fttp and fttn) are constantly upgrading their networks. The only people being left out are rural folks and they will likely be covered by the next wireless being developed by the telcos.

Competition between telcos and cablecos has never been stronger. They are all offering video/voice/internet.[/quote]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolute bullshit for the bulk of the country. Only in super high population density areas already amply served by cable , various fiber optic alternatives wage a very competitive high stakes battle, leaving everyone else starved for broadband.

As one of the totally fucked, I have absolutely zero faith that companies like AT&T to act in anything but a public be damned manner, especially when they will do nothing to help deliver anything but very crappy dial up to everyone else as they spurn any broadband funding that would require better. And if they refuse to be part of any solution, it makes them part of the problem.

Been there done that, I am fed up with AT&T. And if they were on fire, I would not even piss on them to put their fire out. Its hardly a response I can be proud of, but AT&T has earned it in spades. An AT&T friendly FCC commissioner, over my dead body.

 

[Craig234]

I'd like to see what the EFF has to say about her. I've been hoping Obama will reverse the Bush FCC.

 

[Modelworks]

I wish they would put the 'nerds' back in control of the FCC. All the people they put in control of the FCC now are people that don't know a gigabyte from a megabyte. Is it too much to ask that they should use people who have a degree in the area they are making decisions about ?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Well there goes broadband reform.

I am not real sure what reform is needd the broadband arena. Both the cablecos(docsys 3) and telcos(fttp and fttn) are constantly upgrading their networks. The only people being left out are rural folks and they will likely be covered by the next wireless being developed by the telcos.

Competition between telcos and cablecos has never been stronger. They are all offering video/voice/internet.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolute bullshit for the bulk of the country. Only in super high population density areas already amply served by cable , various fiber optic alternatives wage a very competitive high stakes battle, leaving everyone else starved for broadband.

As one of the totally fucked, I have absolutely zero faith that companies like AT&T to act in anything but a public be damned manner, especially when they will do nothing to help deliver anything but very crappy dial up to everyone else as they spurn any broadband funding that would require better. And if they refuse to be part of any solution, it makes them part of the problem.

Been there done that, I am fed up with AT&T. And if they were on fire, I would not even piss on them to put their fire out. Its hardly a response I can be proud of, but AT&T has earned it in spades. An AT&T friendly FCC commissioner, over my dead body.[/quote]

As i stated the rural populations are being left behind the wired upgrade for now, but the other 85% of the population is getting pretty good competion from telco and cable.

And next gen wireless is supposed to have better coverage and faster speeds.

I feel your pain, my parents have att fiber running though their front yard, but are stuck on dialup. The can get decent wireless, but dont want to spend the extra to get it....

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: charrison

As i stated the rural populations are being left behind the wired upgrade for now, but the other 85% of the population is getting pretty good competion from telco and cable.

And next gen wireless is supposed to have better coverage and faster speeds.

I feel your pain, my parents have att fiber running though their front yard, but are stuck on dialup. The can get decent wireless, but dont want to spend the extra to get it....

There is no competition in even some of the largest cities. You have a choice, the local telco or the local cable company. That is not competition , it is a monopoly.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: charrison

As i stated the rural populations are being left behind the wired upgrade for now, but the other 85% of the population is getting pretty good competion from telco and cable.

And next gen wireless is supposed to have better coverage and faster speeds.

I feel your pain, my parents have att fiber running though their front yard, but are stuck on dialup. The can get decent wireless, but dont want to spend the extra to get it....

There is no competition in even some of the largest cities. You have a choice, the local telco or the local cable company. That is not competition , it is a monopoly.

In most large cities you can get phone or internet from either the telco or cableco. Video is becoming a very common product offered by the telcos. Between verizon and att they offer wired video to some 30 million households. And their build outs are continue to expand.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: charrison

As i stated the rural populations are being left behind the wired upgrade for now, but the other 85% of the population is getting pretty good competion from telco and cable.

And next gen wireless is supposed to have better coverage and faster speeds.

I feel your pain, my parents have att fiber running though their front yard, but are stuck on dialup. The can get decent wireless, but dont want to spend the extra to get it....

There is no competition in even some of the largest cities. You have a choice, the local telco or the local cable company. That is not competition , it is a monopoly.

In most large cities you can get phone or internet from either the telco or cableco. Video is becoming a very common product offered by the telcos. Between verizon and att they offer wired video to some 30 million households. And their build outs are continue to expand.

So I can choose between either of the two local monopolies ?
That isn't competition . Competition is what some cities in the USA have. They put in and own their local infrastructure and have 20+ companies competing for each home in the city.

 

[MovingTarget]

Heh, that is no good. Here in my state, our legislature is just about to deregulate landline service, which had formerly been supervised by the elected public service commission. AT&T is getting what they want, elderly and rural customers be damned. Broadband is similar nowadays to telephone service many decades ago. Unless it is regulated and deployed as a utility, only the urban/wealthy areas are going to get decent (or any) service. We need a consumer advocate, or like someone else saaid, a real nerd in charge of the FCC. Frack the corporatist influence here.

Just my 2¢.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: charrison

As i stated the rural populations are being left behind the wired upgrade for now, but the other 85% of the population is getting pretty good competion from telco and cable.

And next gen wireless is supposed to have better coverage and faster speeds.

I feel your pain, my parents have att fiber running though their front yard, but are stuck on dialup. The can get decent wireless, but dont want to spend the extra to get it....

There is no competition in even some of the largest cities. You have a choice, the local telco or the local cable company. That is not competition , it is a monopoly.

In most large cities you can get phone or internet from either the telco or cableco. Video is becoming a very common product offered by the telcos. Between verizon and att they offer wired video to some 30 million households. And their build outs are continue to expand.

So I can choose between either of the two local monopolies ?
That isn't competition . Competition is what some cities in the USA have. They put in and own their local infrastructure and have 20+ companies competing for each home in the city.

The fact that there are two, makes a monopoly impossible.

If you want phone service, you have multiple options, telco, cable, wireless
if you want tv, you can have telco, cable, sat or free OTA
if you want internet most have option of cable or telco, and you could do wireless as well.

This is far from a monopoly situation.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Heh, that is no good. Here in my state, our legislature is just about to deregulate landline service, which had formerly been supervised by the elected public service commission. AT&T is getting what they want, elderly and rural customers be damned. Broadband is similar nowadays to telephone service many decades ago. Unless it is regulated and deployed as a utility, only the urban/wealthy areas are going to get decent (or any) service. We need a consumer advocate, or like someone else saaid, a real nerd in charge of the FCC. Frack the corporatist influence here.

Just my 2¢.

THe rural area would be better served by wireless than wired. The money that is dumped into USF, would provide wireless for those folks in rural areas.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Heh, that is no good. Here in my state, our legislature is just about to deregulate landline service, which had formerly been supervised by the elected public service commission. AT&T is getting what they want, elderly and rural customers be damned. Broadband is similar nowadays to telephone service many decades ago. Unless it is regulated and deployed as a utility, only the urban/wealthy areas are going to get decent (or any) service. We need a consumer advocate, or like someone else saaid, a real nerd in charge of the FCC. Frack the corporatist influence here.

Just my 2¢.

THe rural area would be better served by wireless than wired. The money that is dumped into USF, would provide wireless for those folks in rural areas.

True, but even wireless is pretty piss-poor in a lot of areas if it is available in the first place. Of the wireless options we have, all seem to be colluding to the point where a rural user could easily afford wired dsl service, but not anything wireless from verizon/tmobile/AT&T/etc. for anything other than mobile use. Have you seen the data rates for text messaging for example? Sometimes you do need public oversight/regulation...

 

[theflyingpig]

Another foolish decision.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Heh, that is no good. Here in my state, our legislature is just about to deregulate landline service, which had formerly been supervised by the elected public service commission. AT&T is getting what they want, elderly and rural customers be damned. Broadband is similar nowadays to telephone service many decades ago. Unless it is regulated and deployed as a utility, only the urban/wealthy areas are going to get decent (or any) service. We need a consumer advocate, or like someone else saaid, a real nerd in charge of the FCC. Frack the corporatist influence here.

Just my 2¢.

THe rural area would be better served by wireless than wired. The money that is dumped into USF, would provide wireless for those folks in rural areas.

True, but even wireless is pretty piss-poor in a lot of areas if it is available in the first place. Of the wireless options we have, all seem to be colluding to the point where a rural user could easily afford wired dsl service, but not anything wireless from verizon/tmobile/AT&T/etc. for anything other than mobile use. Have you seen the data rates for text messaging for example? Sometimes you do need public oversight/regulation...

I agree that wireless is expensive and test messaging without a plan is very expensive. However for those living in rural communities without dsl or cable option, wireless does fill that gap if you want off dialup.

New wireless technologies are coming out with should make these wireless services more available and faster. All of the wireless companies are rolling out 4th gen wireless right now.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Heh, that is no good. Here in my state, our legislature is just about to deregulate landline service, which had formerly been supervised by the elected public service commission. AT&T is getting what they want, elderly and rural customers be damned. Broadband is similar nowadays to telephone service many decades ago. Unless it is regulated and deployed as a utility, only the urban/wealthy areas are going to get decent (or any) service. We need a consumer advocate, or like someone else saaid, a real nerd in charge of the FCC. Frack the corporatist influence here.

Just my 2¢.

THe rural area would be better served by wireless than wired. The money that is dumped into USF, would provide wireless for those folks in rural areas.

True, but even wireless is pretty piss-poor in a lot of areas if it is available in the first place. Of the wireless options we have, all seem to be colluding to the point where a rural user could easily afford wired dsl service, but not anything wireless from verizon/tmobile/AT&T/etc. for anything other than mobile use. Have you seen the data rates for text messaging for example? Sometimes you do need public oversight/regulation...

Hopefully some other companies step in and start offering wireless service to compete with the incumbent cellular providers. FCC recently opened up some of the old analog TV spectrum for unlicensed use and there are some pretty big companies (HP, Microsoft, Google, etc.) who would like to offer wireless internet using this spectrum. Think about it, companies could even develop cellphones using VoIP over this network so you wouldn't have to pay for voice+data from the incumbent cell operators. Consumers would be able to get data and voice service from hopefully a large number of competing providers.

Wireless has a lot of potential and in the coming years I hope to see a lot more competition in this market. Especially now that Verizon bought out Alltel, there really isn't much choice for consumers when it comes to wireless voice and data services.

 

[Lemon law]

I agree that wireless may offer us rural folks some broadband option, but before you can offer broadband wimax, you need the infrastructure of towers. Ideally both AT&T and verizon would accept some of that 7 billion of money already allocated for rural broadband, lease space to providers who can and would offer wimax, but instead both declined any Federal money while going full speed stopped ahead on delivering anything of their own at anything but rip off rates.

At least sprint may be doing something, but I don't have a sprint tower within 20 miles of me. I have an ATT&T tower 2 miles from me, but AT&T does not even offer wireless broadband modems for home based desktops.

Our only hope is for a FCC that gets it, and if they are going to be stooges for out telco's that are part of the problem, we are doomed.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I agree that wireless may offer us rural folks some broadband option, but before you can offer broadband wimax, you need the infrastructure of towers. Ideally both AT&T and verizon would accept some of that 7 billion of money already allocated for rural broadband, lease space to providers who can and would offer wimax, but instead both declined any Federal money while going full speed stopped ahead on delivering anything of their own at anything but rip off rates.

Apparently there are too many strings attached for the telcos to accept that money. Sprint is building out wimax, and att/verizon are switching 4g.

At least sprint may be doing something, but I don't have a sprint tower within 20 miles of me. I have an ATT&T tower 2 miles from me, but AT&T does not even offer wireless broadband modems for home based desktops.

Just checked att's website they do in fact have usb 3g devices. Sure a data plan will cost you $60 a month and probably has a 5 gig cap, but that is much better deal that dialup.

Our only hope is for a FCC that gets it, and if they are going to be stooges for out telco's that are part of the problem, we are doomed.

Our telecoms are doing very well building out new infrastructure. I hope the goverment stays out of the way and lets them finish do build outs. I think the rural folks need to realize as well that lving in low population densitiy is going to require paying more infrastructure. You cant expect $20 dsl with low population density.

 

[frostedflakes]

I am impressed by how fast wireless data is improving. Of course at the rates they charge for text messaging, wireless data, etc., it's no wonder they have a lot of money to put into infrastructure.

The nice thing about wireless though is that it's ideal for the last mile. Wireless broadband has the potential to be relatively cheap for rural customers, but until we get some competition the major cellular providers are just going to continue to milk customers for broadband at $60/mo. Not to mention most cap data usage at 5GB/mo, which is just unacceptable for power users IMO.