Comments on article found at:online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704370704575228503914251096.html

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.

I am all for sensible regulation. I am also supportive of developing regulation over time with industry input. When politics (and special interests) gets into the mix, the likelihood of intelligent and well thought out regulation diminishes. FCC Chairman Genachowski is proposing applying rules designed to regulate traffic on copper-wire telephone networks. What exactly does that mean?

Does the FCC plan on reclassifying broadband? The FCC plans on applying the following six sections of Title II of The Communications Act

• Section 201—Requires Internet providers to interconnect and charge reasonable rates
• Section 202—Prevents price or service discrimination
• Section 208—Sets up FCC complaint process
• Section 222—Protects customer privacy and proprietary commercial information
• Section 254—Allows use of Universal Service Fund for broadband
• Section 255—Ensures disability access

I am a little confused. Title II applies to Common Carriers.

Briefly, Section 201 (a) states: “It shall be the duty of every common carrier engaged in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio to furnish such communication service upon reasonable request therefor; and, in accordance with the orders of the Commission, in cases where the Commission, after opportunity for hearing, finds such action necessary or desirable in the public interest, to establish physical connections with other carriers, to establish through routes and charges applicable thereto and the divisions of such charges, and to establish and provide facilities and regulations for operating such through routes”.

That is not a minor rule/regulation. Section 201 says a lot about the Commission’s thoughts about its authority over how common carriers establish connections with other carriers and establishes charges with other carriers.

Instead of the usual Washington DC ranting and raving over political divisions, I would be interested in seeing an explanation behind why Genachowski selected those six sections.

Section 202 concerns itself with pricing and service discrimination. I hate seeing service providers gouge users, however, the marketplace usually ends up policing itself fairly well. Section 202 makes sense in a world where there are a small handful of key providers. Is this the FCC’s way of dealing with dwindling competition in the Internet space? Assuming you are afraid of Google and Apple charging whatever they want, applying this section makes sense. If I were Google, I would think long and hard about this section.

Section 208 addresses a complaint process. If the FCC sets up a complaint process for Internet services, then I am assuming the FCC will establish operating rules and penalties. How do you address the validity of complaints when you don’t have a clear set of rules that say “this is right and this is wrong”? What is the point of setting up a complaint process unless there are penalties associated with unresolved user complain