Comments on article found at: blog.connectedplanetonline.com/unfiltered/2010/05/25/fcc-third-way-regulation-gets-bi-partisan-slam/

The judicial and legislative processes are interesting. The federal courts tell the FCC that it is overstepping its authority in how the agency enforces certain broadband rules. The FCC responds by ignoring the courts and looking for a loophole to create rules that will allow them to do what the courts said it is not allowed to do.

I have stated that I did not expect the FCC to take the court’s decision lying down. I just find the entire process interesting. It has not reached the level of sausage making but it certainly is getting there.

Some may say the FCC’s actions are heavy handed; I will simply give them the benefit of the doubt and say the FCC is misinformed about its role and authority in this matter. The decision to reclassify broadband is not a simple matter for the FCC alone to decide.

I had originally posted this view on my own site a few weeks ago. However, now Congress has weighed in on the matter. I am not sure if Congress is just playing this for media attention or not; it is an election year. Nevertheless, Congress needs to be involved. The basis for all telecommunications and information services activities is governed by the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996; both are laws passed by Congress, not the FCC.

If Congress is serious about spanking the FCC then let us hear some serious discussion. If I recall correctly the FCC’s current position on broadband is the result of a two-decade long fight that began in the early-1980s with the Bell Operating System and something called “data”. The Bell Operating Companies fought to keep a new thing called “data” from being classified a telecommunications service, which meant back then, “voice”. The fight morphed over the years into “information services” and then everything over “the Internet and anything not voice”. In the late 1980s, the FCC decided to classify “data” and “anything not voice” as “information services”. Back then it made sense, no one really understood where “data”: was going; the desktop computer was still considered a business tool and only people with lots of money could even afford one. The cell phone was considered a high priced ticket item.

In 2005, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the FCC’s decision. If I recall correctly, the Supreme Court even acknowledged the FCC’s technical strengths. Now the FCC may change its mind about that. I have said in the past that network neutrality is a great idea in theory. However, I am not sure network neutrality can be implemented without total chaos to the network and carrier financial structures. Can the carrier community think this through and come up with a solution? Probably but I would love to hear the discussion.

Anyone remember the fight and discussions to update the Communications Act of 1934? I do. I liken any reclassification of broadband as a telecommunications service as big as the last update to the Communications Act of 1934, which is called the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It has been 14 years since the Telecom Act was passed and technology has changed in ways in which most of us could not have predicted. I agree the Telecom Act may need to be reviewed but the operative word is “may”.

Despite what you may hear the traditional telecommunications network is a complex network of networks. Think interconnected streets and highways with tollbooths and traffic lights. Folks, it is not that simple. Needless to say, the network of networks is complex. Throw i