[iwar] [fc:The.FCC.and.big.companies.control.of.high-speed.Internet.access]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2002-06-07 11:14:48


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-4786-1023473504-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 [204.181.12.215] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.7.4) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Fri, 07 Jun 2002 11:16:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 6869 invoked by uid 510); 7 Jun 2002 18:12:06 -0000
Received: from n25.grp.scd.yahoo.com (66.218.66.81) by all.net with SMTP; 7 Jun 2002 18:12:06 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-4786-1023473504-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com
Received: from [66.218.66.98] by n25.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Jun 2002 18:11:44 -0000
X-Sender: fc@red.all.net
X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_2); 7 Jun 2002 18:11:44 -0000
Received: (qmail 30062 invoked from network); 7 Jun 2002 18:11:43 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Jun 2002 18:11:43 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO red.all.net) (12.232.72.152) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Jun 2002 18:11:42 -0000
Received: (from fc@localhost) by red.all.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g57IEna17731 for iwar@onelist.com; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 11:14:49 -0700
Message-Id: <200206071814.g57IEna17731@red.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
X-Mailer: don't even ask
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
X-Yahoo-Profile: fcallnet
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 11:14:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [iwar] [fc:The.FCC.and.big.companies.control.of.high-speed.Internet.access]
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=DIFFERENT_REPLY_TO version=2.20
X-Spam-Level: 

<a href="http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/06/07/broadband/index.html?x">http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/06/07/broadband/index.html?x> 

 
Getting a lock on broadband How the FCC is paving the way for a few big
companies to control everyone's high-speed Internet access. 
 
Editor's note: Fifth in a series on the consolidation of power and
ownership in the media landscape. 
 
                                       - - - - - - - - - - - -
                                       By Jeffrey Benner
 
 
 
June 7, 2002 | The Federal Communications Commission is quietly handing
over control of the broadband Internet to a handful of massive
corporations. 

 
In March, the FCC ruled that cable companies do not have to open their
networks to competing Internet service providers, or ISPs.  A FCC
proposal to extend the same exemption to DSL service is pending.  If
approved, the proposal will allow local phone companies, now down to
four "Baby Bells," to deny other DSL providers access to local phone
networks.  Currently, all DSL providers are guaranteed access to phone
networks under the FCC's interpretation of federal telecommunications
law. 
 
Telecommunications, cable, and media companies (increasingly one and the
same) and their allies in Congress have campaigned for years to
deregulate most aspects of the telecom industry.  Under the current
administration, and the leadership of FCC chairman Michael Powell, those
efforts have finally begun to pay off. 
 
The trend profoundly concerns consumer advocates and some Internet
policy experts.  They warn that if the FCC goes through with its plans,
cable companies and the Baby Bells will quickly establish a monopoly on
broadband service over their own networks.  Consumers accustomed to
thousands of competing ISPs to choose from for dial-up narrowband
Internet access will be left with just one or two options for broadband
service.  One worry is that the lack of competition will yield high
prices and poor service.  But the far more urgent concern is that media
conglomerates will use their control over broadband pipes to restrict
access to content, information, or technologies that compete with their
own content or otherwise threaten their interests. 
 
"The past two decades on the Internet have been a uniquely
consumer-friendly environment," says Mark Cooper, research director at
the Consumer Federation of America.  "Now that is up for grabs.  The
essential ingredient of the Internet was preventing the owner of the
facilities from dictating content.  Now, eight cable companies will
decide what the public will be offered, not 8,000 ISPs." The CFA, along
with the Media Access Project, the Center for Digital Democracy, and the
Consumers Union are challenging the FCC ruling on cable broadband in
federal court. 
 
Despite those dire warnings, the FCC's policy on broadband enjoys strong
support.  Companies with a stake in the matter are gung-ho for it, at
least for their own networks, and many independent economists and public
policy experts also find the FCC's deregulatory approach to broadband
enlightened and long overdue.  They scoff at the idea that the
freewheeling Internet can be controlled by any company or group of
companies.  And they argue that the current regulations, particularly
the open-access requirements for DSL, actually discourage private
investment in new broadband infrastructure and technology.  Who wants to
build a new network -- whether it's DSL, satellite, or "fiber to the
home" -- if you then have to share it with competitors?
 
If the government steps aside, they say, robust competition will develop
between different technology "platforms" such as cable, phone, satellite
and local wireless, giving consumers plenty of choices and stimulating a
build-out of broadband infrastructure at the same time. 
 
"If you have competition between platforms, consumers will be better
off," says Randolph May, a communications policy expert with the
Progress and Freedom Foundation.  "The problem is that [regulation]
impedes investment and new entrants to the market."
 
Further complicating the picture is the massive consolidation in the
media and telecommunications industries that has been building for
years.  That consolidation is expected to accelerate as the FCC throws
out limits on how large and broad media companies can grow.  Once those
limits are gone -- some have already been eliminated -- it is quite
plausible that a single media company could control the broadcast
television stations, newspapers, radio and broadband Internet access in
a single city. 
 
Even some conservatives worry about this concentration of power among
the very companies seeking unregulated control over broadband Internet
access.  Kenneth Arrow, a Stanford economist who won the Nobel Prize for
his free-market theories, supports the deregulation of broadband.  But
he also expresses concern about pushing reliance on the free market too
far.  "I am worried about concentration in the media," he says.  "That
does bother me."
 
The heart of the anti-deregulation camp's argument is that the
narrowband Internet owes its phenomenal success as an engine of
innovation, creativity and economic growth to government regulations
that guaranteed open competition.  Current telecommunications
regulations, originally written to break up the Bell telephone monopoly,
require open access to phone lines for all ISPs and forbid the Baby
Bells to tweak with the content flowing over their networks.  If such
protections are not extended to broadband service over cable, and are
lifted from DSL over the phone lines, those against deregulation fear
that the openness, innovation, and creativity that made the narrowband
Internet revolutionary will wilt in the tight fist of corporate control. 
Huge media companies -- increasingly fearful of the threat posed by the
Internet to their proprietary content -- will jump at the chance, they
say, to lock things down. 
 
"There is a fundamental battle going on," said Larry Lessig, a Stanford
law professor and an expert on Internet history and policy.  "There is a
strong political movement to remove all obligations to keep the network
open [and] the Internet as we knew it."
 
On March 13 the FCC commissioners ruled, 3-1, that cable broadband is an
"information service" rather than a "telecommunications service." By
toggling definitions just so, the commission cleverly managed to exempt
cable broadband -- widely acknowledged as the key communications network
of the future -- from all the rules that apply to telecommunications
services under the Telecommunications Act of 1996.  The most important
piece of telecom legislation in 60 years, the act, among other things,
requires telecommunications companies to open up their networks to
competition. 
 
This open-access requirement is the reason you can choose from among
hundreds of long-distance carriers and from among thousands of ISPs for
dial-up access to the Internet.  Under the law, local phone companies
must allow other companies to sell services over the phone lines, even
if they compete with the phone company's own services or products.  The
Telecommunications Act also forbids network owners from meddling with
content on their network.  This is why narrowband users -- and thus far,
DSL users -- can fax, or talk, or download music off the Internet
without permission or fear of interference from the local phone company. 
The rules were written to prevent the owners of the telephone wires from
using their power over the lines to control content or stifle
competition. 
 
Over the past several years, as cable companies have begun offering
services generally considered to be telecommunications -- Internet
access, digital telephone service, video conferencing -- there has been
an increasingly bitter battle between cable companies and consumer
advocates over whether open-access requirements and other regulations
that apply to telecommunications should also apply to cable.  The March
ruling settled the question: Telecom rules won't apply to cable
broadband. 
 
The 1996 act defines "telecommunications" as simply "the transmission,
between or among points specified by the user, of information of the
user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the
information as sent and received." Consumer advocates argue this should
apply to cable broadband.  Although the act, and the FCC, have long
referred to high-speed Internet access as "advanced telecommunications
services," the FCC decided in its March ruling that cable broadband is
really better described as an information service.  Although technically
still under FCC jurisdiction, there are no significant regulations on
information services, which include services like voice mail.  As a
"declaratory ruling," the commission reached its decision without a
hearing or public comment period. 
 
FCC commissioner Michael Copps, the lone Democrat on the four-member
commission, wrote in his dissenting statement that the ruling amounted
to a breach of the Constitution. 
 
"Today we take a gigantic leap down the road of removing core
communications services from the statutory frameworks established by
Congress," Copps wrote, "substituting our own judgment for that of
Congress and playing a game of regulatory musical chairs by moving
technologies and services from one statutory definition to another. 
Last month I remarked that we were out-driving the range of our
headlights.  Today I think we are out-flying the range of our most
advanced radar."
 
But the FCC is not stopping there. 
 
For years there has been clamoring from all sides that the same
regulations should apply to all types of broadband access, although
opinions differ on what the rules should be, or if there should be any
at all.  Public policy for broadband is particularly confusing, because
the service is offered over cable, phone and wireless connections, and
each of those sectors has traditionally had a separate set of
regulations.  Chairman Powell has made it plain he would like to clear
up the confusion and have consistent rules. 
 
In February, the FCC proposed lifting the current open-access
requirement for DSL service.  No decision has been reached yet, but now
that the FCC has ruled that cable companies will not have to open their
networks to competition, and given Powell's enthusiasm for consistent
regulations -- or lack of them -- it seems a safe bet the FCC will let
the Baby Bells shut out their competitors, too.  The logic is
essentially that one monopoly deserves another. 
 
The prospect of broadband provision reduced to a few competitors, each
with a monopoly on their own platform, scares the hell out of consumer
groups that have fought the creation of corporate monopolies over media
and information sources for years.  Because media conglomerates such as
AOL have begun buying up the pipes that deliver the content they
produce, the situation seems even more ominous.  In short, consumer
advocates worry these companies will mess with content in order to force
the Internet to serve their own interests.  They argue, for example,
that a cable company will never allow streaming video to flow over its
cable broadband lines if it competes with its cable television service. 
Even the right to "click through" to the Web won't be guaranteed, they
warn, and companies are likely to turn the Internet into walled gardens
of their own content -- think AOL with no escape hatch to Google. 
 
"The path the FCC is currently on will change the Internet that you
know," said Cheryl Leanza of the Media Access Project (MAP), a public
interest telecommunications law firm.  "Currently, rules prevent phone
companies from controlling content in any way.  There is no content
protection for cable, and the FCC has proposed to take away the
protections on content discrimination for DSL.  The impact will be
breathtaking."
 
Like consumer advocates, free-market supporters trumpet the importance
of competition among ISPs, and fear a monopoly on broadband.  But they
think the access requirements and the other rules in the Telecom Act
stifle rather than secure competition, innovation and investment, and
the monopolist they are concerned about is Uncle Sam.  "I'm a lot more
worried about John Ashcroft than John Malone," quipped Gerald Faulhaber,
chief economist of the FCC from 2000 to 2001, referring to the attorney
general and to one of the top power brokers in the cable industry. 
 
At the heart of the argument that the free market will save us lies the
belief that competition between DSL, cable, satellite, local wireless
and other technology "platforms" not yet imagined will be more than
enough to guarantee that consumers will get the Internet when, where,
and however they want it.  Even if one company enjoys a monopoly on one
of those platforms, the theory goes, it will not amount to a monopoly on
high-speed Internet access overall.  Better still, they say, encouraging
a horse race between platforms will mean that billions of dollars in
private investment will pour into broadband infrastructure and
equipment. 
 
"It's clear the FCC is moving toward putting cable off-limits to
regulation [under the Telecommunications Act], and I think that's a
great idea," said Faulhaber, who now teaches economics at Wharton.  "I
wish Michael Powell would do more to encourage platform competition.  As
long as people think this will be regulated, no [competitor] is going to
jump in."
 
Competition between platforms would indeed steal an awful lot of thunder
from those making dire predictions that mega-corporations are about to
capture control over the next generation of the Internet.  If my cable
company won't let me click through to the Web or get streaming video, I
can get DSL, or a satellite dish, or a wireless connection. 
 
But the likelihood that robust competition will actually develop for a
majority of households remains a hotly contested question.  As of June
2001, the latest official statistics available from the FCC show 2.7
million U.S.  households using DSL, 5.2 million using cable modem, and
200,000 broadband via satellite.  Fifty-eight percent of U.S.  zip codes
(not necessarily households) had more than one broadband option
available.  Twenty percent of zip codes had no broadband service at all. 
 
Advocates of broadband deregulation tend to be very optimistic about the
potential for interplatform competition to improve; its critics are not. 
 
The pessimists say that cable is too far ahead, that DSL doesn't have
the bandwidth to compete with cable on key applications like video
streaming, and that satellite broadband -- besides its tiny market share
-- works well for downloading but not uploading.  "In the abstract, no
one would deny that 10 different platforms would be good," said Leanza
of the Media Access Project.  "But it's naive to assume that most people
will have more than one platform available."
 
Optimists point out that DSL is catching up and network upgrades would
make it just as fast as cable modem, that satellite is a real option
just needing time to develop, and that new options like local wireless,
fiber to the home, even networks over power lines, will take off if
local, state and federal bureaucracies would stop standing in the way. 

 
In the most extensive independent study of broadband to date, the
National Research Council came to a mixed conclusion regarding
interplatform competition.  The report found that interplatform, or
"facilities based," competition, is important and should be encouraged. 
But it also predicted it would not take hold everywhere and should not
be relied on exclusively for consumer protection. 
 
"The report found that facilities-based competition is important, but
don't assume you're going to get it," says David Clark, a computer
scientist at MIT and a coauthor of the NRC study.  Some locations, like
big cities, might get three competitors, others two, and some just one,
he said.  Nevertheless, Clark cautiously endorsed the current FCC policy
of deregulation. 
 
"The gamble is to get broadband out there, no matter what it looks
like," Clark said.  "You might try for a level of competition you don't
get.  You might gamble and lose.  But I would say, get it out there."
 
That is a gamble consumer advocates are not willing to take.  In their
view, the best possible outcome of the bet is bad, the worst case
catastrophic.  "Even if three top platforms reached every household, we
will be trading hundreds of [ISP] choices for three," says Leanza, but
she thinks even that number is too much to hope for.  "Deregulation can
only work if competition is in place," Leanza says.  "You can't have
both deregulation and monopoly, and that is where we are headed."
 
Viewed in the context of the FCC's campaign to deregulate media and
telecommunications in general, the concerns about who will control
broadband become even more urgent.  With quite a bit of prodding from
the courts, the FCC has been tossing out or rewriting rules, called
"ownership caps," that limit how large and broad media conglomerates can
grow.  The cap on how large cable companies can grow is gone.  So is a
limit on how many broadcast television stations one company can own.  A
"cross-ownership" rule forbidding cable companies from buying broadcast
television stations has been scrapped.  Another that forbids ownership
of newspapers and television stations in the same market is under
review, as is a restriction against owning more than one broadcast
television station in the same city. 
 
Analysts agree the regulatory changes already made will soon unleash a
new wave of consolidation in the media sector.  Among companies that
deliver broadband, the consolidation is already under way.  In December,
AT&amp;T agreed to sell its cable division to Comcast, in a deal valued
at $72 billion.  If approved, the combined company will have 27 million
subscribers, or about 40 percent of the cable market.  EchoStar and
DirecTV, the top two satellite television companies, have also announced
plans to merge.  The combined company would essentially have a monopoly
on satellite television.  The two companies argue they need to merge in
order to compete with the likes of AT&amp;T Comcast. 
 
"At the end of this, one company in a community could own the newspaper,
several TV and radio stations, the cable company, the principal ISP --
maybe even the phone company!" said Jeff Chester, director of the Center
for Digital Democracy.  "This stands the First Amendment rights of
citizens in the digital age on its head."
 
For those who, like Chester, are worried that deregulation will result
in a dangerous consolidation of power among a handful of media companies
in traditional media like television, print, and radio, keeping the
Internet out of their control has become all the more urgent.  In their
minds, the battle for broadband could amount to democracy's last stand. 
"This is a war for the heart of the Internet," Chester said.  "Will a
few telecoms be allowed to seize control of it, or will it be preserved
as a democratic resource? It's David versus Goliath."
 
The cable companies and Baby Bells disagree, arguing that there is
sufficient competition both within and between platforms and that more
can be expected.  AT&amp;T's cable division has voluntarily agreed to
let EarthLink sell cable modem service over AT&amp;T-owned cable in
Boston and Seattle, and it is promising to open more markets soon.  But
skeptics say the company has been dragging its feet on opening access
for years and is giving token access now to head off mandatory
requirements as a condition of its pending merger with Comcast, another
major cable company.  As a condition of the merger between AOL and Time
Warner last year, the Federal Trade Commission required the combined
company to open its lines to at least three competing ISPs. 
 
But, oddly, the same cable corporations that oppose mandatory open
access for their own cable networks are among the most eloquent and
spirited advocates of continued mandatory access for the telephone
lines.  Both AT&amp;T and AOL Time Warner have asked the FCC to maintain
open access for DSL -- a market both would like to crack -- arguing that
the rules protect consumers.  Both companies oppose placing the same
requirements on their cable networks, markets they would like to
protect. 
 
"For decades, the FCC has successfully promoted the openness of our
nation's wireline infrastructure," AOL Time Warner lawyers wrote in
comments submitted to the FCC on its proposal to eliminate open-access
requirements for DSL.  "It understood that by ensuring
non-discriminatory access to wireline networks, consumer welfare would
be optimized."
 
Hearing AOL laud the benefits that open access offers consumers on DSL,
despite its opposition to such access for cable, triggers eye-rolling
fits among consumer advocates who want open access for both cable
broadband and DSL.  "This double standard illustrates what's at stake,"
said Chester.  "Media giants are manipulating broadband for their own
purposes -- not the public interest."
 
Asked why AT&amp;T supported open-access requirements for phone lines of
local carriers, but not for its own cable network, AT&amp;T spokeswoman
Claudia Jones said: "Cable and telephone are different animals.  There
is ubiquitous competition for cable.  Satellite is really bringing
competition to the cable market.  But there is virtually no competition
in the local telephone market.  The Bells can't get what they wanted in
Congress, so they are looking to the regulators."

 
"The hypocrisy is outrageous," said the Consumer Federation of America's
Mark Cooper.  He thinks getting regulators to overrule Congress is
exactly what AT&amp;T's cable division has done by successfully
persuading the FCC not to apply open-access requirements to cable
broadband. 
 
In the end, the battle over broadband is about who has control over
information.  One unlikely but eloquent spokesman for the importance of
fair access to information is FCC chairman Powell himself.  Speaking at
the Broadband Technology Summit in April, an event sponsored by the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce, Powell said:
 
"You name it, and information plays a vital role in making a decision,
making a commitment, taking a risk, or agreeing to part with something
of value.  Often in these transactions the information one has will
determine if the transaction is fair, or whether someone gets taken --
the taker having superior knowledge about the deal."
 
For those who are convinced Powell's policy on broadband could
permanently tip the balance of power over information toward massive
corporations, the irony of his statement must be almost unbearable. 
 
But catastrophe is hardly assured.  Perhaps technology and the free
market will come to the rescue.  They have before.  What is certain is
that by deregulating broadband, the FCC is taking a tremendous risk that
could have unforeseen consequences.  A risk few people even know they
are taking, fewer still understand, and only four get to vote on. 
 
The scenario is not new.  In 1981, Congress quietly eased restrictions
on savings and loan houses, allowing them to invest their federally
insured deposits however they pleased, even in, say, junk bonds.  In the
mid-1990s, the SEC softened rules that had prevented accounting firms
from consulting for their auditing clients.  Aside from a few stray
government watchdogs, a handful of Beltway bureaucrats, and a clutch of
corporate lawyers, those obscure but radical experiments in deregulation
went unnoticed -- until it was too late. 
 
- - - - - - - - - - - -
 
About the writer Jeffrey Benner is a freelance writer in Brooklyn, N.Y. 
His work appears regularly in Wired News and Salon. 

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Save 30% on Web addresses! Get with the times, get a web site. Share information, pictures, your hobby, or start a business. Great names are still available- get yours before someone else does!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/UBc4BA/nFGEAA/Zr0HAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2003-08-24 02:46:32 PDT