Some Good News

[Lloyd Danforth]

 On Tuesday April 6, 2010, 10:38 am

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks.

Tuesday's ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC's authority to impose so called "net neutrality" obligations.

It marks a serious setback for the FCC, which needs authority to regulate the Internet in order to push ahead with key parts of its massive national broadband plan.

[Pat McCotter]

It marks a serious setback for the FCC, which needs authority to regulate the Internet in order to push ahead with key parts of its massive national broadband plan.

There is nothing in this country that a plan cannot fix, is there?

The National Broadband Plan
Connecting America to affordable, high speed broadband.

[Pat McCotter]

FCC Calls on Congress to Spend More Money to Push PBS-Style Government-Sponsored Journalism Onto Internet to Compete With Privately Funded Internet Journalism
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
By Matt Cover, Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) – The Federal Communications Commission's National Broadband Plan calls for Congress to spend more tax dollars than it currently does on public broadcasting in order to push PBS-style government-funded journalism onto the Internet to compete with private-sector Internet journalism.

The plan, submitted to Congress on March 15, envisions so-called Internet-based public media as the 21st century successor to the local public broadcasting television and radio stations of today.  It says this successor will play a "vital and unique role" in American democracy as the government seeks to build a "healthy and thriving media ecosystem."

"[P]ublic media will play a critical role in the development of a healthy and thriving media ecosystem," the FCC plan states. "Public media plays a vital and unique role in our democracy, informing individuals and leading our public conversation as well as building cohesion and participation in our communities."

The current public broadcasting system, the FCC explains, is at a "crossroads" as sites such as YouTube and Wikipedia make local public broadcasting obsolete.

"Public media has historically focused on broadcasting," the plan says. "Today, public media is at a crossroads. That is why public media must continue expanding beyond its original broadcast-based mission to form the core of a broader new public media network that better serves the new, multi-platform information needs of America."

To allow public media to be the "core" for America's "multi-platform information needs," more federal (taxpayer) funding will be required.

"To achieve these important expansions, public media will require additional funding," states the FCC report.

The FCC then recommends that Congress consider increasing funding to public media to assist with the movement from small, local stations to Internet-based networks. One avenue it directly endorses is for current public broadcasting stations to auction off their television spectrum, with the proceeds from those auctions being redirected back to the local public broadcasters themselves.

"As one avenue for the funding of online content, Congress should consider creating a trust fund for digital public media that is endowed by the revenues from a voluntary auction of spectrum licensed to public television," reads the report.

"Congress should consider dedicating all the proceeds from the auctioned spectrum contributed by public broadcasters to endow a trust fund for the production, distribution, and archiving of public media."

While it calls for new, congressionally created sources of funding, the FCC's Broadband Plan does not explain what differentiates public broadcasting, which is confined to local areas, with Internet-based public media, which would not be so confined. It does, however, frequently cite the official comment of Rutgers University Law Professor Ellen Goodman, who is also working on the FCC's Future of Media Project.

Professor Goodman's comment, submitted to the FCC during the drafting phase of the National Broadband Plan, explains that the public media envisioned by the FCC would allow the government to achieve the goal of an Internet environment where content creation is determined not by supply-and-demand market forces, but by local concerns following three principles: creation, curation, and connection.

"The 'why' of universal, fast, and reliable broadband is to connect people to information that improves their lives and those of others – communication that is essential to performing the functions of democratic citizenship," the comment reads. "Linking individuals and communities to relevant information – the 'how' of broadband policy – requires robust, flexible, and innovative networks."

Goodman continues: "It also requires the creation of moving narratives, accountability reporting, and a safe space to engage publics respectfully in issues of relevance to them; the curation of information in ways that make it accessible, understandable, and visible; and agents that intentionally connect individuals to each other, to community institutions, to information that they need, and to stories that inspire."

Current local, public broadcasting has been unable to accomplish these goals because there was no way to get content produced by one local public access station broadcast nationwide. The Internet would allow that to happen, if the government expanded public broadcasting into public media.

"Broadband technology now allows public media to achieve the vision that, for the past 60 years, has been largely aspirational," reads Goodman's comment. "The Federal government has invested well over $10 billion in the public broadcasting system. States have invested billions more. There is now an opportunity to leverage that public investment in public service broadcasting to create public service broadband."

"A system of digital public media – or more accurately, cooperative systems of public media – can work with intention to deploy broadband content to forge connected communities," says the comment.

The "functions" of a public media system would be to use the power of the Internet to give a voice to things that had not survived the rigors of the media marketplace, where the demands of customers drive content creation. It would also serve as curator, focusing on what information to highlight, and as a connector of media producers who have not been able to find a broad enough audience to make it in the marketplace.

Goodman further stated: "These functions are (1) to create content – particularly narratives in the form of journalism, long-form documentaries, oral histories, and cultural exploration – that markets will not and that is important to individual and social flourishing; (2) to curate content, serving as both a filter to reduce information overload and a megaphone to give voice to the unheard; and (3) to connect individuals to information and to each other in service of important public purposes."

[MaineShark]

FCC Calls on Congress to Spend More Money to Push PBS-Style Government-Sponsored Journalism Onto Internet to Compete With Privately Funded Internet Journalism
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
By Matt Cover, Staff Writer

...

Goodman further stated: "These functions are (1) to create content – particularly narratives in the form of journalism, long-form documentaries, oral histories, and cultural exploration – that markets will not and that is important to individual and social flourishing; (2) to curate content, serving as both a filter to reduce information overload and a megaphone to give voice to the unheard; and (3) to connect individuals to information and to each other in service of important public purposes."

If the content were important to folks, the markets would supply it.

If the market isn't supplying this particular content, it's because no one actually wants it.  Or, no one is willing to pay for it, anyway.  Forcing folks to pay for it is nonsensical...

Joe

[CJS]

While I always like to see the government and its bureaucratic henchmen get cut off at the knees , I have a bad feeling about Comcast , Verision and the like having free reign to decide what content gets where and how fast / uninterrupted it arrives on a network they did not pay to build. Remember many areas only have single provider and in the end both options most likely hurt the consumer . ISP's can now slow down their competitors products access and speed  and hype their own , not to even get into how happy they are to act as accomplices in the violating of our 4th and 5th amendments

I freely admit to being a novice in the finer points of a truly free market ... but how would people keep large monopolies in check when they decide to take advantage of a "cornered market" ?  This stuff is really confusing to me as I move away from being a limited gov constitutionalist to a person who just wants to be on my own in all things .

[Russell Kanning]

you can't monopolise the internet without the threat of force

the internet is ruining it for the ruling elite, just like the printing press did
you can burn books, but some stay hidden
you can try to control the flow of packets on the wires, but it will find a way around

[MaineShark]

I freely admit to being a novice in the finer points of a truly free market ... but how would people keep large monopolies in check when they decide to take advantage of a "cornered market" ?  This stuff is really confusing to me as I move away from being a limited gov constitutionalist to a person who just wants to be on my own in all things .

Monopolies only exist when the government creates and maintains them.

Let's say I sell widgets in your town.  I'm the only one in town who sells widgets.  Monopoly?  Nope.  Because if I sell shoddy widgets, or raise my prices to some extreme, you (or someone else) will open a competing widget store.  I have to maintain the quality and pricing of my widgets such that the overall value is good enough to de-incentivize someone opening a competing store.  My pricing and business practices are still subject to the competitive forced of the market.

Only when the government steps in and prevents those competitors from opening their stores (and I know they will do that for me) can I behave in a monopolistic manner.  Without Vinny the Enforcer, I need to fend for myself and deliver good value for a fair price, or someone else will.

Joe

[Pat McCotter]

The widget store is not a good comparison here. You need to show how free market solutions can overcome the "last mile" for things like cable/internet/phone, electric, gas lines, etc.

Cable/internet/phone have competition through satellite. Electric can be generated on-site at a price. Gas has a;ternatives in propane and oil.

The established infrastructure owners have to come up with a way to compete with those who can deliver around them but they keep turning to govt to maintain their monopoly status because they are so-called "natural monopolies."

It's the "Who'll build the roads?" cry here.

[MaineShark]

It's all products and services.

The only reason broadband companies have a monopoly is because the government granted it.  Without it, there could be multiple broadband companies in a single area.  Maybe they'd put up separate wires.  Maybe they'd form a co-op that owns the wires and they'd all share them by agreement.  Who knows.

No matter what, without the government's intervention, monopolies cannot exist.  Someone will always come up with a way to compete, whether using similar technology, or some alternative means.

Joe

[Roycerson]

I pay extra for more bandwidth.  That's not ok?

[Pat McCotter]

Sure, but you also must pay extra for those who can't afford it.

[CJS]

What I was trying to say is that IMO the only regs or laws that would keep the internet free flowing (not that I want the gov in any of my life )would be hated by both the FCC and the ISP's so we are all SOL.

I agree completely with Russell with the powers that be are scared shitless about the free flow of ideas and information and the threat that makes to their continued power structure , but I think there would be monopolies in a free society as well , as power hungry rich people will always act like power hungry rich people.

I also agree with that the widget concept may not be the right comparison . I believe people and communities would survive and thrive in a truly free society , but there are things that would not exist with out some kind of collectivist action . Who is going to build , launch and maintain satellites? Maintain , repair / upgrade the existing structure needed for cellular , internet or other huge multifaceted services ?

I honestly am not trolling and am not trying to start an endless debate about who will build the roads.... but as some one with road building experience I again say ...some things simply won't happen with out some level of collectivism hence some form of leadership structure with some one looking to hold the power some how.

Any way as a guy who has been very interested in the freedom in the internet its cool to see what liberty minded people think. Love this place.

[MaineShark]

...but I think there would be monopolies in a free society as well , as power hungry rich people will always act like power hungry rich people.

How does being rich allow you to have a monopoly?  Having a monopoly requires not that you be rich, but that you have thugs with guns who prevent competition.  And if you have that, it's no longer a free society...

Who is going to build , launch and maintain satellites? Maintain , repair / upgrade the existing structure needed for cellular , internet or other huge multifaceted services ?

The owners?

I honestly am not trolling and am not trying to start an endless debate about who will build the roads.... but as some one with road building experience I again say ...some things simply won't happen with out some level of collectivism hence some form of leadership structure with some one looking to hold the power some how.

There's nothing magical about building roads that requires a State.

Government roads are built to fail, to keep constant demand for government road crews.

Private roads would be built better, because repairs come out of the owner's bottom line.

Joe

[Lloyd Danforth]

I have always understood that one could gain and maintain a monopoly by offering the best product or service at the best price.

[MaineShark]

I have always understood that one could gain and maintain a monopoly by offering the best product or service at the best price.

Still not a monopoly, though, as in the widget example.  You still have competitors; they're just silent.

Joe