Wednesday, December 29, 2010

First Arrests of Smart Meter Protesters in U.S. Made Today in Marin Co., California

Should the Wireless Sector be Concerned with Increasing EMF Militancy ? 12/29/2010 San Francisco - Two activists protesting the deployment of smart meters by Northern California's Pacific Gas & Electric Corp. (NYSE: PCG) today became the first anti-smart meter campaigners in the U.S. to be arrested for their actions.

Katharina Sandizell-Smith and Kristin McCrory were accused of blocking a public street in Inverness Park, California this morning and arrested by Marin County Sheriff's Deputies. In a variety of venues, groups associated with today's arrests allege that wireless smart meters emit levels of electromagnetic frequency (EMF) radiation that are harmful to human health. 
Marin County Sheriff's Deputies arrest Katharina Sandizell-Smith (left) and
Kristin McCrory (right) in Inverness Park, California this morning.
Photo: Courtesy of Scotts Valley Neighbors Against Smart Meters

Today's arrests mark a new flash point among anti-smart meter groups scattered around the nation and electric utilities installing the terminals which are key elements of the emerging American smart grid infrastructure.

In comments of this afternoon to this publication, spokesperson Joshua Hart of the group, Scotts Valley Neighbors Against Smart Metersthat organized the protest went further than voicing the group's continued criticism of PG&E's smart meter effort. He warned the U.S. wireless industry of an increasing militancy, as activists fighting what they see as the harmful impacts of a variety of EMF applications present throughout society.

"The wireless industry needs to look itself in the mirror and decide whether they are going to follow the tobacco industry's route of denial and deception, burdening a generation with lasting health impacts or invest in high speed fibre optic, wired and stable connections for our future telecommunications needs", said Hart in an email in response to our questions about today's arrests.

"There is a growing revolution across the country against forced wireless smart meters, and other microwave radiation near people's homes.   Government and industry would be wise to take note," concluded the spokesperson of the group named , based in Santa Cruz County, California.

Hart agreed with our estimate that today's arrests in Marin are the first in the United States staged by anti-smart meter protesters. This assessment is concurred with by another leading anti-smart meter organizer, Sandi Maurer of Sebastopol, CA. Ms. Maurer is a co-founder of the EMF Safety Network

While several California legislators and consumer groups have criticized various aspects of PG&E's smart meter roll out as it effects ratepayers, these two groups have instead focused on what they see as the EMF ramifications of the large scale deployment. 

Concerns about the perceived harm of EMF radiation have been voiced for years by citizens opposed to the construction of wireless antenna sites. The new focus on smart meters has however caught the U.S. wireless industry  by surprise at a time it is greatly increasing its capital investment in 4G broadband networks. 

Activists allege that the peak or pulse radiation emitted by wireless smart meters, as the terminals cycle through bursts of near real time data delivery, should be further investigated and limited by federal equipment certification processes. They routinely state, in testimony to state utility regulators and in other venues, that this issue of peak radiation has not been properly studied by either the utility or wireless sectors.  

"Who Are Those Guys"?
Coming on the heels of passage in June of San Francisco's local ordinance requiring EMF warning labels on all wireless devices sold in the city, calls in Congress for further radiation studies, and EMF activism around smart meter installation programs in other California locations, one wonders if a tipping point of negative public opinion may loom on the horizon.

Marin County, California, like its more famous sister county across the Golden Gate, San Francisco, is one of the most progressive polities in the nation. Should the American wireless sector see concerns about EMF issues in Marin, in San Francisco, and in other areas of the Golden State as early telltales of a potential national trend, or as outliers easily dismissed? 

"Yes," said Sandi Maurer answering our question about the possible importance of today's apparently planned arrests, "today is significant in terms of the movement" toward what she calls "prudent use" of wireless.

"There is a certain part of the population, I can't guess how large it is, that avoids the use of wireless for health reasons," said Maurer of the EMF Safety Network. She pointed out that for those people wary of EMF radiation from a variety of sources, the perception that a utility will install a wireless meter in one's home without an "opt out" provision is upsetting.   

Advocates for smart grid investment nationally -- investment which has been given an $11 billion jump start by federal stimulus funding ($3.4 billion dedicated to smart meters) appropriated by Congress for programs of the U.S. Department of Energy -- can be forgiven for regarding two arrests in bucolic West Marin as being apropos of nothing. 

Coupled with consumer protection concerns over billing accuracy, and over capital costs loaded onto the rate base, will the growing militancy focused on smart meters argue for some state level regulatory second looks? Will these, in turn, result in even further slowed deployments of this essential end equipment needed to capitalize the larger national smart grid infrastructure?

Should the industry and the regulators, perhaps, be like Butch and Sundance and at least deign to ask "Who are those guys"? 

Our Take: Two Industries Need to Take A Closer Look in 2011
We believe wireless carriers and equipment manufacturers will be paying closer attention in 2011 to how smart meter deployments may become, surprisingly to many of us, drivers of an elevated concern with EMF issues by some U.S. consumers. We think the smarter utilities and regulators will be doing the same. We think that's a good thing.

Yes, yes, we've heard all the arguments that people concerned about this stuff are crazy.

Here's the deal: We in the telecom industry make our living in a sector that is regulated at all 3 levels of government.  We've permitted wired and wireless technologies since before most people even knew what cable television was.  We've been preaching in favor of the smart grid over broadband since before those terms were in common use. Despite what we might like to think, we don't have a god given right to dig up a street, site a tower, or receive public sector subsidies. We do all those things, and more, because our customers want our services. 

When fellow Americans, no matter how few and no matter how vilified, are going into the streets to get arrested about something our industry is doing, is that really a good thing for us? Anyone that thinks it is a good thing has never actually done the hard work of permitting, licensing, or deploying the technologies that drive our country's economy.     

Let's drop back and listen, do some more studies, allow opt outs when necessary. The big power monopolies, like PG&E, trace their ancestry back to the robber baron era. They often remind us of that. Let's remember that many of us in competitive telecom grew up fighting another monopoly called the Bell System. We had the American consumer on our side as we did. Let's remember that too.

Thursday, December 23, 2010

FCC Open Internet Order Released to American Public 12/23/2010 San Francisco - The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) this afternoon released to the public the long awaited final text of its historic Open Internet Report and Order.

FCC Open Internet Order - FCC-10-201A1

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

FCC's "Open Internet" Order Is Still A Secret 12/21/2010 San Francisco - Somewhere George Orwell is smiling. The full text of the FCC's "Open Internet" Order remains a secret. It remains secret even after it was voted on this morning by Commissioners. 

In remarks of this morning at the Commission's open meeting, Chairman Julius Genachowski, the Order's lead author, stated he is "proud of this process, which has been one of the most transparent in FCC history." 

The document as approved by a 3 - 2 vote remains hidden from public view as staff edits final copy. We reported yesterday that senior Commission officials describe this as a process of making final "tweaks." Meredith Atwell Baker, one of two Republican Commissioners to vote against the Order, stated that the final draft voted on was submitted to Commissioners just "12 hours earlier."

That draft, the one now being "tweaked" by staff after one of the most critical Commission votes of the Internet era, resulted from 3 weeks of work by Commissioners and staff. That cycle was launched by Genachowski's action of December 1 as he submitted his initial draft "on circulation" to fellow Commissioners and authorized staff.

The initial draft also remains a secret despite calls for its public release -- and thereby, god forbid,  the disclosure of its many critical details -- by Republican Commissioners, Members of Congress, and a variety of public interest groups and trade associations. It is that initial draft which this publication called for to be leaked to us on December 2 for immediate publication. That is the same working iteration of the Order which we issued a FOIA request for the following day.   

No one at the FCC leaked that first draft to us. Our has not received even a few pages of any working draft, as discussed with lobbyists during the scores of ex parte meetings held with Commission staff. 

In a discussion yesterday with the Commission's Office of General Counsel, we were told that the FOIA request would "be processed in  timely manner." Timely, of course, means we are not to expect any answer of substance, including a potential denial of release of the first draft, until the full '20 business days' allowed by the FOIA statute runs to its conclusion on January 4. Its called a slow roll.
So what's the big deal here anyway? 

The big deal is that there are some of us impertinent enough to, yes, actually want to study the arcane details, arguments, and legal citations of a document that holds untold impact for the most dynamic sector in the American economy. Some of us might actually desire to read the text of that complex and important document rather than take the word of Commission issued summaries, rare as they are. Having the final voted document in-hand allows us to see what Chairman Genachowski has cobbled together with (forgive us of this) the luxury of actually seeing and understanding what the Order says.

And that is the point.

The Order is the single most important regulatory document in U.S. telecom policy since at least the passage of the 1996f federal Telecom Act. The point is that the American people have a right to see all of the various drafts of the Order. The point we have a President that pledged to open our government, and to preside over the most transparent administration in history. 

We deserve to understand not only what it says at a detailed level, we deserve to understand how lobbyists and partisan Commissioners changed the working draft over the past 3 weeks. That is what full transparency means. That is precisely the type of transparency that President Obama promised us.

What we have instead is a controlled view of what the Order says. It is a view spun by paid media relations personnel on government payrolls. It is a view reported by selected media outlets to which advance copies of the Chairman's speeches have been given ahead of the rest of us. It is a view framed by the PR arms of some of the largest cable and telecom trade associations in the nation who have accessed pieces of working drafts during those scores of ex parte proceedings.

Much will be written about the significance of the Open Internet Order. The fact that so much national debate has raged over a document that the American public has not seen to date is surely not the smallest irony delivered to us by an Administration that pledged better.

Somewhere George Orwell is smiling.

Monday, December 20, 2010

Call It the Netflix Rule: FCC Says "We Will Not Bless Paid Priority Rules" in Net Neutrality Order 12/20/2010 San Francisco - Call it the Netflix Rule. 

It is the attempt by a now working majority of FCC commissioners to establish a rule that prohibits "paid prioritization" of Internet traffic, yet allows for the increased revenues necessary to recapitalize the American national broadband infrastructure in the face of surging usage.

That huge uptick in usage is most clearly produced by 4G mobile broadband applications and by online video content providers. The most prominent in the latter category is Netflix, Inc. (NASDAQ: NFLX) current darling of both Wall Street and on demand video consumers.

That rule will be seen in the text of the final network neutrality Order which will be voted on -- but still not issued as a public document -- at the Commission meeting of tomorrow, December 21.

That rule, and the degree to which it is accepted or challenged by the two major camps at sword points over net neutrality issues -- application and content producers vs. service providers -- has become the single most critical question in American telecom policy since the passage of the federal telecom Act of 1996. Netflix, which is now seeing a surge of customers move to online viewing, stands to be the biggest single near term winner if the Commission can enforce its stated ban on paid prioritization.

Paid Prioritization Not "Blessed" in Order
Senior officials of the Federal Communications Commission today vehemently stated that the anxiously awaited network neutrality rules will in no way allow for so called paid prioritization of digital traffic by Internet service providers (ISPs).

Speaking on background during a conference call of this afternoon, two senior appointed staff officials of FCC made clear that the network neutrality Order expected to be voted on in the affirmative by all three Democratic commissioners at the Commission's open meeting of tomorrow, will not allow or otherwise give incentive for ISPs to charge for certain types of traffic over others. 

Multiple analysts, reporters, public interest groups, and trade associations have been stating their belief that such "paid prioritization" would be allowed, following the circulation to his four colleagues by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski of the secret draft of the Order on the first of December.

"It is categorically false," stated one of the two senior staff officials on the call "that the order will bless paid priority rules." Staff did however state that the language in which such practices will be prohibited will leave the door open to some conceivable practices which the Commission would not find "unreasonable" going forward. 

Paid Prioritization "Unlikely to be Reasonable"
"The Order explains it is unlikely to be found reasonable" in any response by the Commission to a complaint brought in the future, stated the officials. "Someday might it be reasonable?" asked the official rhetorically. "That is left open, with a very high bar" being set by the Order against any ISP attempting to levy such prioritization conditions on traffic.  

How and what is defined as "paid prioritization" is one of the most essential items in the Order, especially in relation to those practices that ISPs will be allowed. "The order does discuss the issue of broadband providers giving choices for services," further stated the FCC senior official. 

Previously the senior staff member had stated, in introducing the broad outlines of the Order, that the document has changed since Genachowski's December 1 submittal, with "changes providing a little more certainty around the definition of broadband services."

Will Wall Street investors and Silicon Valley VCs see the Order as allowing for capital flows back to ISPs needing to upgrade their access and transport networks, while still giving the protections for neutral access to those networks required by application developers and content providers? 

We will only know once the American public can finally see the actual text of the Order, and see how application developers, capital markets, ISPs, and equipment manufactures eager to sell gear to carriers react.

Alert: FCC Will Not Release Final Net Neutrality Order on 12/21 12/20/2010 San Francisco - Senior officials of the Federal Communications Commission just stated on a media conference call that the Commission will not be releasing its long anticipated final Order on network neutrality issues tomorrow, December 21, as expected.

Senior FCC officials stated that given the "robust" work among staff of the office of Chairman Julius Genachowski and Commissioners Clyburn and Copps, release of the final order will still await several important "tweaks" over the next several days. No specific date was disclosed for release of the Order, other than the time period of the next "several days."

The two senior Commission officials on the call fully anticipated that the three Democratic members of the Commission -- Genachowski, Clyburn, and Copps -- would vote in favor of the Order.

Friday, December 17, 2010

IG of Commerce Discloses Points of Motorola Stimulus Grant Investigation 12/17/2010 San Francisco - Inspector General Todd J. Zinser of the U.S. Department of Commerce today disclosed his reasons for opening the first audit or investigation by a federal IG of any grant or loan award made under the $7.2 billion broadband stimulus program of the Obama Administration. The disclosure is seen in a 3 paragraph memo just released to the media, and posted on a federal website, which also outlines the specifics points of the precedent setting inquiry.

The disclosure follows yesterday's news that Zinser's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) confirmed to press outlets that the controversial $50 million grant award to Motorola for the BayWEB wireless public safety project was the subject of an audit. As we reported yesterday, this is the first time in the nearly 2 year history of the program that such action by an IG has been publicly disclosed.

In his memo to Assistant Secretary of Commerce Lawrence E. Strickling, Zinser stated that the OIG action was triggered by the letter of November 1 written by Dr. Jeff Smith, County Executive of Santa Clara County, California, and addressed to Zinser. Smith had asked for an investigation of the BayWEB award by the OIG, given that the grant was made by Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).

The IG states his auditors and investigators will be looking at 2 specific issues:

1. Staff of OIG will "examine the procedures followed by NTIA in reviewing the initial complaint from the County of Santa Clara and City of San Jose prior to preparing its October 1, 2010 response, and subsequent actions to look into the issue."

2. "Second, we will review the valuation of equipment provided as matching share by the grantee, in addition to the equipment being purchased from the grantee as part of the BayWEB project."

Notification to NTIA BayWEB

The BayWEB Examination is our compendium of information on the project. We believe it is the most comprehensive such collection available. We have assembled links to all media coverage of the issue, to online documents secured by us from confidential and open sources, to documents secured by others and by this publication under federal and state public records filings, and to our own published reporting.

Note on awardee identification: The project grant was applied for by, and subsequently awarded to, the entity Motorola, Inc., formally traded as (NYSE: MOT). Motorola, Inc. was split into 2 new and separate companies, which both began trading on January 5, 2011.  The network infrastructure side of the business, all public safety equipment lines, and the network integration / management services divisions became Motorola Solutions, Inc. (NYSE: MSI). We have retroactively re-tagged our BayWEB stories with the MSI ticker symbol.

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Alert: Motorola Confirms Inspector General's Audit of $50 Million BayWEB Broadband Stimulus Grant

First OIG Announced Audit Under Entire Broadband Stimulus Program; NTIA Unaware of OIG Action 12/16/2010 - (Updated 11:20 PM) San Francisco - Company and federal officials have confirmed that the $50 million BayWEB broadband stimulus award to Motorola, Inc. (now Motorola Solutions, Inc.; NYSE: MSI) is now the subject of an audit by the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Commerce (OIG).

BayWEB thus becomes the first and only broadband stimulus award in the nation to be specifically targeted for an audit by a federal inspector general, or to be publicly announced as the focus of such an inquiry.

Inspector General Todd J. Zinser, U.S. Department of Commerce
In excess of $7 billion has been awarded to date, although little of it has been expended, under one of the signature technology funding programs within the Obama Administration's $787 stimulus effort. The program is jointly managed by the Agriculture Department's Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). BayWEB is a grant solely issued by NTIA for one of the few federally financed 700 MHz LTE public safety networks.

News of the audit was first broken by business reporter Eli Segall of the San Jose Business Journal this afternoon.  Segall quoted OIG spokesperson Randall Popelka as saying, "There is apparently an irregularity in this grant, and we look at irregularities."

Popelka confirmed for this publication early evening today that the OIG audit of BayWEB is underway, and the reporting by Segall was fully accurate.

Motorola's authorized spokesperson for the firm's Government and Public Safety section, Mr. Matthew Messinger, stated to this afternoon that "we are aware of the audit."  Continued Messinger, "the people we are talking to within Motorola say this is customary."

When asked if the OIG's audit was ongoing, the Motorola spokesperson replied, "We are aware the audit is being done."

When reached early evening today, NTIA spokesperson Ms. Moira Vahey was unaware of the audit action by OIG, stating the agency would have a response comment Friday morning.

The BayWEB Examination is our compendium of information on the project. We believe it is the most comprehensive such collection available. We have assembled links to all media coverage of the issue, to online documents secured by us from confidential and open sources, to documents secured by others and by this publication under federal and state public records filings, and to our own published reporting.

Note on awardee identification: The project grant was applied for by, and subsequently awarded to, the entity Motorola, Inc., formally traded as (NYSE: MOT). Motorola, Inc. was split into 2 new and separate companies, which both began trading on January 5, 2011.  The network infrastructure side of the business, all public safety equipment lines, and the network integration / management services divisions became Motorola Solutions, Inc. (NYSE: MSI). We have retroactively re-tagged our BayWEB stories with the MSI ticker symbol.

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Alert: San Jose City Council Asks Feds to Reallocate $50 Million BayWEB Stimulus Grant Away from Motorola

Council Member Who is Former Prosecutor Calls for "Public Corruption Case" 12/14/2010 -  The City Council of San Jose, CA, deliberating this morning on the increasingly controversial $50 million federal broadband stimulus grant awarded to Motorola, Inc. (now Motorola Solutions, Inc.; NYSE: MSI) for an advanced public safety network project, passed an item asking the federal government to reallocate the grant from the firm to the city governments it is proposed to serve.  The vote by the legislative body representing the largest city in Northern California is the first of its kind for any award under the $7.2 billion broadband stimulus program of the Obama Administration.

During the 90 minute discussion on the matter, a sitting councilmember who is a former federal and state prosecutor said that a "public corruption case" was warranted for the so-called BayWEB project.

The action came as the Council voted unanimously to support two recommendations proposed by staff of Mayor Chuck Reed.  He and Santa Clara County Executive Dr. Jeff Smith are the leading area officials strongly questioning the budgetary, ethical, and procurement aspects of BayWEB. The project is proposed as one of the first 700 MHz LTE broadband networks in the nation, and is funded by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The grant is part of agency's Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP). 

The lead recommendation voted by the Council asks "the National Telecommunications and Information Agency to reallocate the funds to the Bay Area cities and counties," thus moving the $50.6 million federal grant from Motorola, to the governmental jurisdictions the funds are intended to support. Mayor Reed stated during the meeting that NTIA Administrator Lawrence Strickling has already told him in direct conversation "the money goes back" to the U.S. treasury if awarded funds are not disbursed to Motorola.

Councilmember Sam Liccardo, a former state and federal prosecutor, said during deliberation on the BayWEB item that if he were still serving as a prosecutor, "I would have cleared my desk for a public corruption case," given the appearance of improper activity alleged to surround the BayWEB award.

Liccardo's statement marks the first time an elected official in California has suggested in public a criminal investigation into the mounting allegations and questions about the project.

This morning's action by the council was triggered by a demand of last week issued by NTIA Program Manager Lance Johnson for public sector partners in the BayWEB effort to express verbally and in writing their "intent" to move ahead with the project, or otherwise.

Today's vote demonstrates that BayWEB is increasingly a severe public relations and business development challenge for Motorola as it attempts to show first mover status in the growing broadband wireless sub-sector of the public safety communications equipment marketplace.

We will follow this Alert with detailed reporting on the escalating events of the past week around BayWEB as they continue to develop here in the Bay Area and in Washington. 

The BayWEB Examination is our compendium of information on the project. We believe it is the most comprehensive such collection available. We have assembled links to all media coverage of the issue, to online documents secured by us from confidential and open sources, to documents secured by others and by this publication under federal and state public records filings, and to our own published reporting.

Note on awardee identification: The project grant was applied for by, and subsequently awarded to, the entity Motorola, Inc., formally traded as (NYSE: MOT). Motorola, Inc. was split into 2 new and separate companies, which both began trading on January 5, 2011.  The network infrastructure side of the business, all public safety equipment lines, and the network integration / management services divisions became Motorola Solutions, Inc. (NYSE: MSI). We have retroactively re-tagged our BayWEB stories with the MSI ticker symbol. 

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Barton Concedes Energy & Commerce Gavel to Upton 12/07/2010 San Francisco - Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX-06) has just issued a statement conceding the chairmanship of the U.S. House Energy and Committee to Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI-06). The Michigan Republican will become Chairman of the powerful House committee as the GOP takes control of the lower body in January when the 112th Congress is seated.
Rep. Fred Upton
Barton's concession follows this afternoon's vote by the Republican Steering Committee to recommend Upton as Chairman to the full House Caucus. 

In his statement emailed to the media within the past several minutes, Barton, the Ranking Member of the Committee, said:

“It has been a privilege to serve on the Energy and Commerce Committee for 24 of my 26 years in the House of Representatives, and it was a high honor to lead this committee.

Now I want to offer my congratulations to Fred, who is taking over the best committee in Congress. He has an enormous job ahead, and Im going to do everything I know how to make his chairmanship the kind of success that the American people want and expect."

Friday, December 3, 2010

Barton to Genachowski: FCC Staff Engaged in Distortions on Net Neutrality 12/03/2010 San Francisco - Texas Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX-06) the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Energy & Commerce now in contention to become Committee Chairman in the new Congress, has again racheted up the partisan debate over possible federal network neutrality policy, between Capitol Hill Republicans and the Federal Communications Commission.

Barton this afternoon issued a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachoswki pointing to alleged "discrepancies" and "distortions" in a statement being circulated by FCC staff intended to show industry support for the Chairman's controversial open Internet proposal issued only to fellow Commissioners earlier this week.

Barton Letter - 120310 FCC Quote Distortions

Thursday, December 2, 2010

To FCC Staff: Leak the Net Neutrality Proposed Regs

We Call for Transparency the Old Fashioned Way, We Will Publish the Leaked Document 12/02/2010 San Francisco - The release late Tuesday by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski of proposed network neutrality regulations marks a new round in one of the most controversial and critically important debates in American tech and telecom policy since the passage of the 1996 Telecom Act.

Send a copy of the Chairman's net neutrality proposal to:

As every reader here knows, the reaction to the Chairman's suggested framework approach has been pointed and swift from industry, political, and policy arenas alike. Public interest advocates have called the proposal a sellout to the large carriers. Newly energized Republicans on Capitol Hill have called Genachowski's move outright illegal. The largest cable trade association, the NCTA, applauded the effort. The Chairman's two colleagues from across the aisle, Commissioners  Meredith Atwell Baker and Robert M. McDowell, have been nearly as pointed in their criticism as House Republicans.
There is only one important procedural problem in all of this: The document at the center of this critical policy debate, a proposal that has the potential of impacting our economy to the tune of billions of dollars, is not available to the public. 

Its secret. Not classified, Wikileaks material secret. You and I can't see it, nonetheless. 

The fact you and I can't see it is wrong. Its wrong under our framework of open democratic government. Its wrong under the Administration of President Obama who pledged a new dedication to the goals of openness and transparency. Its wrong under any simple reading of the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Its wrong that an arcane procedure of the FCC will keep the document out of public view until voted on by the full Commission, a vote now scheduled for December 21 in this case.   

I've spoken and corresponded at some length with Commission staff over the past day in attempts to get a copy of the document for publication. Staff has been incredibly helpful in walking though Commission rules. They have correctly said release of the document would be a violation of those rules. These folks are exemplars of the federal workforce. We are well served by them. They are following the rules, and telling us what Commission policy is. That is their job.   

So, here's our pitch to FCC Commissioners, staff, interns, file clerks, and the people that clean the offices; to staff on the Hill; and to attorney - lobbyists with access to pieces of drafts (which is also the way the system works): Send to the email account listed above the Chairman's network neutrality proposed regulations, in any version, form, or finish you have access to. We will publish whatever we receive immediately. The public interest will be served. No one need listen to tiresome iterations about FCC procedures that any Administration truly committed to reform would have tossed out months ago.

You'll feel better when you do it. The document belongs to the American people. The American public has a right to see it, to read it, and to debate it. Those might not be the rules of the agency you work for. They are the rules of the people that founded our nation. They are the rules given to us by a lot of brave men and women buried in American cemeteries all over the world.

Oh, lastly, if anyone wants to know: I personally think Chairman Genachowski is the best thing that's happened to the FCC in a long time. I just have a bad habit of actually believing this stuff about free speech and open government. I have a worse habit of actually holding people that I work to get elected -- people like the guy who appointed the Chairman -- accountable for what they say. 

Update: We have issued a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the document to FCC on December 3. Given that FOIA allows the agency up to 20 business days to respond via either release of the document or citation of 1 or more legal exemptions invoked to continue withholding of the material, that response can take longer than the 3 weeks between now and the Commission meeting of December 21.

FOIA Letter FCC 12-03-2010 Web

- Peter Pratt, Publisher

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

GOP Questions FCC Legal Authority for Net Neutrality Framework Regs 12/01/2010 San Francisco - Republicans on Capitol Hill, and on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), have reacted quickly and strongly against the network neutrality regulatory framework proposed this morning by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.

FCC Commissioner Meredith Atwell Baker
As the two Republican appointees sitting on FCC, Commissioners Meredith Atwell Baker and Robert M. McDowell, were issuing their statements on the heels of  the Chairman's webcast speech of this morning, the two Ranking Members of the House committee most involved in telecom issues issued a written salvo trained at Genachoswki.

The common theme running through the pronouncements of Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX-06) and Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-TX-06), and those of the Baker and McDowell statements: The FCC does not have the legal authority to act on network neutrality matters, as Genachowski is urging for favorable action by the Commission at its December 21 open meeting.

Barton - Stearns 120110 Letter to FCC Net Neutrality
Web Analytics