FCC Chair Schemes to Undermine Net Neutrality

The Federal Communications Commission is supposed to be made up of five independent members who serve in the public interest.

But FCC chair Kevin Martin, a Bush White House retainer who reportedly entertains notions of running for the governorship of his native North Carolina with a campaign war chest full of telecommunications-industry contributions, is now attacking the basic structures of the FCC in order to deliver for the corporations he hopes will someday be his political benefactors.

Martin has ordered the commission's lawyers to come up with a scheme that would force another Republican commissioner, Robert McDowell, to "unrecuse" himself from a voting on a massive merger between telecommunications giants AT&T and BellSouth.

Prior to joining the commission in June, McDowell represented a telecommunications corporation, CompTel, that has engaged in lobbying with regard to the merger. As such, McDowell has a classic conflict of interest. He acted appropriately when he recused himself from the merger vote.

Martin, who still hopes to secure FCC approval of the merger this year, is now trying to get McDowell to act inappropriately -- and, presumably, in a manner that will please Martin's corporate masters.

Martin's move has already drawn rebukes from members of Congress who follow telecommunications issues. "I believe that forcing a Commissioner to participate in a proceeding in which he or she would otherwise be recused is an extraordinary notion for an independent, impartial regulatory agency," said Representative Ed Markey, D-Massachusetts, a key player on the House Energy and Commerce Committee who is seeking the chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. "Agency Commissioners must exercise independent, impartial, and unbiased judgment in matters before the Commission."

Pennsylvania Democrat Mike Doyle, another well-regarded member of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, wrote to Martin that, "While I take no position on the merger proceeding itself, I feel very strongly that this request to unrecuse Commissioner McDowell would set the Commission on a treacherous course toward an unacceptable precedent."

"The recent November elections were, in part, about holding our government officials to the highest ethical standards," added Doyle. "When public servants have identified and recused themselves from legitimate conflicts of interest, they should be commended for upholding the highest standards of public integrity that are required of all government appointees. The recusal option gives the public the fullest possible confidence that agency appointees and other public servants will impartially decide upon the issues before them."

That's Government 101 stuff. But Martin -- a former telecommunications-industry lobbyist who earned his spurs with the administration when he joined the team that helped swing the 2000 Florida presidential recount in Bush's favor -- is not respecting the signals from Congress.

Rather, the FCC chair is pressing ahead with his extraordinary initiative.

Martin needs McDowell's vote because the FCC is split on the merger question. Martin and a fellow Republican commissioner, Deborah Taylor Tate, support the merger. Democratic commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein have refused to support the merger because they want network neutrality provisions attached to the arrangement.

Network neutrality is the first amendment of the internet. It prevents telecommunications corporations from rigging the web so it is easier to visit sites that pay for preferential treatment. And it is under attack from internet service providers that want to set up a system of two-tier internet access -- with an information superhighway for sites that pay premiums to the providers and the digital equivalent of a dirt road for sites that cannot afford to pay the toll.

The issue is of particular significance to the potential AT&T-BellSouth merger, as approval of the deal would make AT&T the world's largest telecommunications company. The merger would give AT&T 9.1 million DSL broadband customers, which is roughly the same number of high-speed Internet subscribers as industry-leader Comcast.

To AT&T-BellSouth merger to go ahead without binding and permanent net neutrality protections would set a precedent that is all but certain to undermine basic protections for all consumers who utilize internet services.

Because the issues are so momentous, Markey says that, even if Martin succeeds in forcing McDowell to vote, the commissioner should refuse to cooperate with the scheme.

"If the FCC General Counsel takes action to compel Commissioner McDowell's participation," says Markey, "I strongly urge Commissioner McDowell to announce his intention to vote to abstain as a matter of principle."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism has been hailed by author Gore Vidal as "essential reading for patriots." David Swanson, co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, says: "With The Genius of Impeachment, John Nichols has produced a masterpiece that should be required reading in every high school and college in the United States." Studs Terkel says: "Never within my nonagenarian memory has the case for impeachment of Bush and his equally crooked confederates been so clearly and fervently offered as John Nichols has done in this book. They are after all our public SERVANTS who have rifled our savings, bled our young, and challenged our sanity. As Tom Paine said 200 years ago to another George, a royal tramp: 'Bugger off!' So should we say today. John Nichols has given us the history, the language and the arguments we will need to do so."

The Genius of Impeachment can be found at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com

Comments (17)

1. The lesson here is that, on the rare occassion when a conservative tries to do the right thing, other conservatives will try to force him or her into corruption.

   Didn't these thieves learn anything from the last election??? Earth to GOP!! Earth to GOP!! It is your corruption that helped get you booted out of power.

   Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 12/05/2006 @ 8:43pm

2. Martin has ordered FCC lawyers to come up with a scheme that would force another Republican commissioner, Robert McDowell, to "unrecuse" himself from a voting on a massive merger between telecommunications giants AT&T and BellSouth.

   And who was the source of this info? As far as I know, the merger between AT&T and BS is a done deal. That's the talk in the ATL.

   Posted by ACook at 12/05/2006 @ 9:23pm

3. The loss of Net Neutrality would be another means of corporate welfare or out and out fraud by the big Telcos.

   The best analogy is taxpayers pay extra tax to build a highway which provides access to other cities which increases commerce which is in the public good. The government then sells off management of the highways to a private corporation who then charges tolls to access the highway the taxpayers paid for.

   Here in Colorado the Telco infrastructure is public property with the Telco's providing maintenance and services for a fee. The loss of Net Neutrality would mean the Telco's could discriminate users based on how much the user pays the Telco. Those that can afford to pay more would get better service. Those that chose not to pay get what's left over.

   Big companies could buy up bandwidth, as a competitive advantage, leaving little to others on critical routes. Those Big companies could then divide up their spare bandwidth and offer it for sale. Think Enron.

   This bandwidth and fiber is public common property and should be used for the common good and not corporate greed. If Telco's believe they need to provide better Quality of Service for their Big ($$) customers they should enter the venture capital market or seek funding to build a Private network that would not be public common property. Let them put their money were their mouth is. Build your own damn network and leave our network alone.

   "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein

   Posted by COProgressive at 12/06/2006 @ 12:33am

4. No problems.....

   I fully trust that the in-coming Democratic Congress will fix this....

   like they helped the Republicans fix the Bankruptcy Bill!

   Posted by Mask at 12/06/2006 @ 08:55am

5. not suprising. the devolution of independent media has been a critical factor in reactionary conservativism's attempt to create a sort of soft ayn rand fascist plutocracy. the internet is the last unconquered bastion of public expression, communication and information dissemination. they must control it also - look at the blog phenomenon. however the suited sociopaths and naysayers may denigrate those average joes and janes who have taken to the blogosphere, they have had an impact...perhaps more than the bloggers themselves think.

   that must stop. once the suits have the kind of control of the internet they want, they have it all. guess those who oppose them will have to start going to real coffee shops to disseminate information...but then where will such information come from? this is a batle that must be won by the schmuks. we should be in the streets, throwing rocks...

   calling all anarchist hackers! get 'em!

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/06/2006 @ 09:36am

6. "democracy? sure its great"

   Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 12/05/2006 @ 5:11pm

   "sure its great"!?!?!?!?!?!

   Did I just see a LIBERAL argue that democracy "ain't all that" and that it's OKAY if "some countries" live under a dictatorship?!?!?!

   Posted by MASK 12/06/2006 @ 09:03am |

   well, i said it. if i am a liberal and i said it, then yes...you just saw a liberal argue that democracy aint all that...

   i love democracy. i love it love it love it love it. i wish all governments all over the world were democratic in nature.

   but they are not. nope.

   and we must work with some countries we do not consider democratic. nor can we change them. like china. soooo...what do we do?

   we do waht we can. if a government is not democratic but is not involved in greivous human rights violations, i just do not see what we expect ourselves to do to change the situation. a more peaceful and stable world might go a long way toward encouraging evolutionary democracy in may parts of the world. i doubt whether democracy is possible now in iraq, for example.

   the desire to see all peoples of the world is noble, laudable, and extremely compassionate. compassion good...

   but compassion must be girded with wisdom lest one's good will create even bigger problems. having lofty dreams is all fine and dandy (please everyone - dream lofty dreams), but the world we live in is not nearly so lofty as our dreams, and if we dont understand that (wisdom) we have problems.

   work toward lofty ideals while understanding the nature of reality.

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/06/2006 @ 09:50am

7. the desire to see all peoples of the world (living under democratic governments) is noble, laudable, and extremely compassionate. compassion good...

   brainfart

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/06/2006 @ 09:51am

8. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 12/06/2006 @ 09:50am

   IBBLE, I'm not saying we can't "work with" dictatorships. In fact, almost NOBODY has ever suggested that, even on the Left (who seem to have an affinity for SOCIALIST dictators to today that rivals the Right's affinity for capitalistic ones).

   What I meant was that the United Nations as a "democratic body" cannot function as such with members who aren't democracies. The dream of a "world government" CANNOT come about unless all countries have the same democratic, human rights-centric governance that Europe, Japan, US, Canada, etc. do.

   If you're a "realist", then bravo. But there IS a lot of hypocrisy floating around by those who on the one hand SAY that they care about democracy and human rights above all else....

   and then turn around and say "Oh, but we can't impose OUR values on places like Cuba".

   Posted by Mask at 12/06/2006 @ 10:10am

9. Posted by MASK 12/06/2006 @ 10:10am |

   i like to think of myself as a realist...

   i do think more authoritarian governments are capable of working within a democratic international framework. i also do not think that every society, for a variety of reasons, is ready for modern american style democracy.

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/06/2006 @ 11:59am

10. i also do not think that every society, for a variety of reasons, is ready for modern american style democracy.

    Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 12/06/2006 @ 11:59am

    Are they ready for ancient Greco-Roman sytle democracy????

    Posted by Mask at 12/06/2006 @ 12:17pm

11. Posted by MASK 12/06/2006 @ 12:17am

    the inability of rome to move from direct to representative democracy explains a lot about the destruction of the republic and rise of imperium. what big governmental/economic/societal structure are we unable to overcome that might endanger our democracy?

    regardless, i'm just saying what countless pundits have said for quite some time now, that a certain amount of education, development, and certain combination of national character and experience are needed for "democracy", and i'm a bit suspicious of our determination to spread democracy and "liberty" when we react so negatively to democracies which disagree with our paradigm, such as venezuela. or when we blather about how the palestinians need democracy, but not THOSE guys...funny how many times "defending the free world" has resulted in establishment of brutal dictators friendly to our economic interests in the last half century or so.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/06/2006 @ 12:46pm

12. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 12/06/2006 @ 12:46am

    IBBLE, again, if you're a realist, fine with me.

    It's the phoney idealists I have a problem with. A TRUE idealist who believes in human rights and democracy would be as forceful about promoting it to CUBA, as El Salvador or Honduras....or in the old Cold War days for Eastern Europe, as for the sheikdoms of the Middle East....and vice-versa.

    But they were few and far between.

    Posted by Mask at 12/06/2006 @ 12:57pm

13. Posted by MASK 12/06/2006 @ 12:57am

    i like to think of myself as an idealist who understands he lives in the real world. like yourself...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/06/2006 @ 1:18pm

14. I fully trust that the in-coming Democratic Congress will fix this....

    like they helped the Republicans fix the Bankruptcy Bill!

    Posted by MASK 12/06/2006 @ 08:55am | ignore this person

    Mask, just curious...is that why you cast your vote in the last election for "the in-coming Democratic Congress"...straight Democratic ticket...rather than for any Republicans at all?

    Posted by Lillian at 12/06/2006 @ 9:03pm

15. Posted by LILLIAN 12/06/2006 @ 9:03pm i dont know exactly what MASK's damage is, but as long as he votes as he says he votes, who cares?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/07/2006 @ 12:32am

16. Posted by LILLIAN 12/06/2006 @ 9:03pm i dont know exactly what MASK's damage is, but as long as he votes as he says he votes, who cares?

    Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 12/07/2006 @ 12:32am | ignore this person

    Acutaully Ibble, I LIKE that Mask voted Dem. I just find it odd that he did so, and then spends his days HERE complaining about them as if he was somehow on the outside looking in.

    Posted by Lillian at 12/07/2006 @ 7:04pm

17. i also do not think that every society, for a variety of reasons, is ready for modern american style democracy.

    Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 12/06/2006 @ 11:59am

    Are they ready for ancient Greco-Roman sytle democracy????

    Posted by MASK 12/06/2006 @ 12:17am

    -------------------------------------------------------

    Neither, what they should be ready for is modern, parliamentary democracy.

    Posted by Tiresias at 12/08/2006 @ 07:05am