Originally published: August 31, 2010
Last updated: August 31, 2010 - 12:48pm
[Commentary] Tom Tauke's case came up short in two general areas and in a few specific ones.
First, the internal contradictions of an Internet divided against itself cannot stand. Second, the defense skirted the uber-issue of how to implement any programs -- Verizon's, Google's, or anyone's -- without the Federal Communications Commission having any authority to do so.
As a framework issue, it's not sufficient to say that the plan meets President Obama's campaign promise of "non-discrimination and transparency on the Internet," as Tauke claimed. It would be acceptable if the Internet existed only in the wired world, but, alas, it doesn't. As FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has said, it's the same Internet, whether reached from a personal computer or from a mobile phone. So by excluding the wireless world from even the minimal suggestions the two big companies made, they cleave out all of the future growth in Internet usage from wireless devices and networks. Between the two of them, Verizon and AT&T control about 70 percent of the wireless market, so it's easy to see why they want the high-growth sector to be fenced off.
- Verizon's Pact With Google Would Keep Internet Open, Tauke Says
- Chairman Genachowski: 'Title II' Docket a Potential Aide to Congress
- Minority groups to oppose FCC reclassification
- The FCC's Dangerous Game of 'Let's Make A Deal'
- Verizon: Feds shouldn't reign over Internet service providers
- Critics Decry 'Secret Deal' as AT&T, Google Huddle With FCC
- Verizon: Title II Classification Would Cause Widespread Harm
- FCC pushes back September meeting
- Tea Party groups out against network neutrality
- Waxman's Bottom Line: The 'FCC Must Act'
- Copps Displays FCC Leadership
- Industry Advisory Group Isn't Substitute for the FCC
- AT&T Says Google-Verizon Internet Plan 'Reasonable'
- The Incredible Shrinking FCC
- FCC, Stakeholders Reconvening on broadband reclassification Aug. 4 and 5