October 2009

Eighteen Republican Senators have sent Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski a letter saying a plan to launch a proceeding concerning Network Neutrality rules is partisan, unsupported by data and could adversely impact broadband speeds and deployment. They say that Chairman Genachowski's proposal to codify and expand network openness guidelines and apply them to wireless broadband appears to be "outcome driven." The charge is a direct challenge to the chairman's avowed policy of letting data drive decisions. The senators said the proposed rules, which have not been released yet, "seem to emanate from a fear that there may be some problems related to openness 'in the future," and counter that it would be burdensome and chilling to the private-sector investment they say has been driving choice and competition. In addition to the letter from the 18, Ranking Senate Commerce Committee Member Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) has sent a letter to Chairman Genachowski outlining her concerns including the necessity of intervention, the impact of the rules on investment, any potential unintended consequences and "fair application." She questioned if the FCC already had the authority to enforce its four Internet access principles why it is necessary to conduct a rulemaking that could create "uncertainty, which in turn will discourage or at least delay planned investment in critical infrastructure." She requested a reply by October 21; the FCC plans to vote on launching the network neutrality proceeding the next day.

[Commentary] Over the weekend, White House communications director Anita Dunn announced the official beginning of the Obama administration's war with Fox News. Of course, the battle has been openly brewing for months now. Even during the campaign, Obama's team gave up on sending surrogates to the network. "It was beyond diminishing returns," Dunn told the New York Times. "It was no returns." But now the war is out in the open. "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent," she told the paper. "As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave." Yesterday on CNN, she clarified: "Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party." The White House's logic seems to be that there's no point in trying to be fairly portrayed on Fox News. Even if they send administration officials to try and reason with its hosts and viewers, the way the information gets presented eliminates any net benefit. (Especially when hosts like Glenn Beck make up facts and present them as sincere truth — the Times cited a moment when even fellow Fox reporters were angered that Beck claimed Fox White House correspondent Major Garrett was "never called on" in the briefing room, when he had in fact been called on that very day.) It's also helpful to have a foil to fight against. In the continuing effort to portray tea partiers and birthers and the like as a sort of faux-patriotic lunatic fringe, the act of isolating Fox is an easy way to draw some lines in the sand.

[Commentary] Does wiring 98,400, or 80% of all U.S. anchor institutions, that lack broadband Internet access make good business sense? Yes. It should be the core for our National Broadband Plan, as well as a central strategic objective for those applying for stimulus grants. In one fell swoop you resolve three critical issues: financially sustaining the network, fostering economic development and generating widespread broadband adoption. If your ultimate objective is to create a communitywide broadband network, then these institutions have to become anchor tenants that actually pay for network services. In many underserved rural and urban areas, low population density and/or low income make it difficult to get enough individual subscribers to pay for a network's operating expenses even when the network is built mainly on grant money. If you look at successful networks already in place, anchor tenants collectively produce most of the revenue because each one spends more per month for services (maybe $1,000, $2,000/month or more) to replace older slower communication technologies, and capitalize on new computing technologies.

Cisco Systems has entered a deal to buy wireless Internet infrastructure company Starent Networks for $2.9 billion. Starent makes equipment for wireless providers such as AT&T and Verizon to send large amounts of data to cell phones, smartphones and computers with mobile broadband modems. Cisco expects global mobile data traffic to more than double every year through 2013.