Reboot the FCC

Who really "owns" the airwaves?The FCC does not. It merely "licence's" space and time.They are ineffectual in that they believe in their prohibition and censorship. That is all it is about. Controlling what is said, and heard.
Ignore the media, what are they going to do about it? Manipulation can work both ways, we are out to get you, media.

The underlying problem here is that you're talking about ending the influence of companies that control *billions* of dollars; the leverage they have on congress and the fcc cannot be undertestimated. You, on the other hand, have zero leverage.

Sure, we can point to obvious failures: The FCCs absolute guarantee that the airwaves could never be accessed by your average citizen, even if they lived in the boonies where the majority of the FM dial was empty (even the AM dial is empty in some places during daylight.) They completely and utterly failed to manage this resource for the benefit of anyone but a few very rich entities. And we, in turn, have been completely unable to move them off of square one when it comes to relenting on utterly ridiculous materials and equipment requirements, inspections, content restrictions, and outright censorship.

When you talk about rebooting the entire system, you're threatening everyone from the corporate interests at the top, to the legislators that live off the largess in every form from escorts to posh after-service jobs and speaking tours, vacation jaunts, campaign contributions, golf trips, you name it -- to the FCC commissioners and the companies that build "FCC_certified" hardware. You cannot change this any more than you can change the US's corrupt political system, its basic disrespect for the constitution, and its current "liberty last, hysteria first" legislating environment.

I'm sorry, but those are the fact. I'm *really* sorry. No one wants to see the changes you suggest more than I do; the FCC has been in my way my entire life (I'm an engineer, a musician, and a writer.) But wishful thinking is all you're presenting to us. Look to yourself: Do you suggest HOW this is all to be accomplished? No. Now ask yourself why. It's really pretty obvious: There's no way to get it done. The FCC is like a cancer growing on another cancer. It'll only die when it kills the host.

Defiantly, it is interesting article. As I understand the point, the author proposed to replace one regulation organ by another. What is the reason ? any regulator will support personal interests. Is any trouble with Amazon innovation today ?

Defiantly, it is interesting article. As I understand the point, the author proposed to replace one regulation organ by another. What is the reason ? any regulator will support personal interests. Is any trouble with Amazon innovation today ?

Time division, multiplexing, MIMO, beam-forming, etc. are radio technologies all developed to share a very limited resource: license free radio, primarily around the limited 2.4GHz band. The fact that ANY working WiFi standard exists today, shows how outdated the FCC interference in spectrum allocation really is. Now we even have technologies like "smart" radios, "soft" antennas, or "cognitive" radio, which seek out unused spectrum, and can change communication methods and frequency use based solely on software updates. These technologies will be further developed in the recent TV whitespaces opening. The time where we need fixed spectrum allocation for ANY purpose is over. The telecommunications monopolies all need to die, and quickly, so real innovative markets can take their place. To the extent that FCC stands in the way of similar innovation, they need to die as well. Perhaps they just need to remember that *Comminication* is the key word in their name. One-way broadcast systems, and network monopolies in general, stifle multi-party communication, in favor of handing ear-bleed inducing megaphones to the privileged few.

Having worked at the FCC and in the industry, my reaction to this article is that it is written from a view that is about 3000 miles from Washington and a million miles from reality.

It doesn???t take a genius to look at the market caps of AT&T and Verizon compared to the rest of the industry to know that there is a structural problem that needs fixing. Benign neglect is not going to cut it. Neither will network neutrality.

The cultures of AT&T and Verizon go back to Theodore Vail who monopolized the industry through acquisitions. AT&T has entered three antitrust decrees since then. That should have been a clue. But then ATT???s offspring got federal legislation in the 1990???s exonerating the Baby Bells from antitrust law. The Bells obviously control policy by more than just the FCC.

Lately, the Bells have been out to crush the latest competitive threat, namely WiMax. They???ve done a pretty good job. For example, Clearwire???s market cap is about $800M, and they just took in $3.2 Billion in cash which is sitting on their balance sheet. By the way, spectrum is structured at the FCC in such a way as to favor the Bell incumbents on such items as spectrum bandwidth, channelization, frequency range, geographic coverage, etc.

Competition is lacking in the communications industry. Innovation will not spring from this industry until the FCC proactively restructures it to promote competition. Even then, history shows that FCC must remain vigilant for decades thereafter in order for competition to permanently take hold.

Lessig could not be more on point. I'm not in favor of a new agency, but current intellectual property rights do more to stifle innovation than they do to protect it. And he is also correct in pointing out the root cause.

1. Yes, the FCC is broken, a "captured agency," but a new agency will not necessarily fix the problem.
While I'm usually a big admirer of Prof. Lessig, he seems here curiously naive about the real power of AT&T and Verizon to control communication and innovation in this country, regardless of what agency is in charge.
2. While AT&T and Verizon might have "built" their networks, they did so with ratepayer money, and many of those facilities -- including fiber -- have already been depreciated out of ratepayer accounts. These networks have always (until now) been run as common carriers, which means that the owner of the conduit could not touch the content on the system.

The airwaves have been sold to private industry just to be sold back to us who own them in the first place. We the people should have a space for free internet. Heaven knows there is enough advertising already that makes the upkeep costs doable.

Professor Lessig is right, as usual. The FCC has become an auction house for communication oligarchs, not a public service entity. However, the rot extends beyond the FCC. Ted "series of tubes" Stevens demonstrated that.

President Obama should not only abolish the FCC, he should appoint Supreme Court justices who are actively hostile to the kinds of shenanigans being perpetrated by the FCC, Patent Office, et al.

The current administration has done everything in its power to weaken or eliminate government oversight of industry and suddenly, three weeks before they leave office, this is an issue? Nice try. Yeah, let's do away with the FCC before the Democrat takes over and returns that office to its role in protecting the public interest instead of corporate interests.

FCC is only good for keeping indecency from the airwaves. The only thing is, Big Brother is the fly on the wall who wants to watch our every move. At some point, they need to mind their own business.

FCC is only good for keeping profanity and absurdity off of the airwaves. The only problem is we cannot do anything without Big Brother interfering with everything we do. They are the fly on the wall to the extreme.

Not sure if those commenters who view Lessig as a "deregulator" really know the man.

I suppose it is hard to encompass an entire philosophy into a web essay, but I read this commentary as changing the focus of the FCC from one that sees telecom as something new that we must incubate to something that is now a significant portion of our economy that we should seek to exploit with innovation. The regulators of the FCC move too slowly and they are usually waging the last war - and on behalf of companies that have grown stodgy - as opposed to thinking about the future.

Which is why our telecom infrastructure is the laggard that it is today.

The "restraint of trade" policies that the FCC oversees has created the environment where the U.S. is ranked #15 in broadband adoption; where U.S. broadband has lower bandwidth than the global market leaders; and where the U.S. mobile phone advanced application deployment trails the market leaders (particularly Asia-Pacific region). Clearly, business as usual for the FCC in 2009 would ensure a continuation of the laggard position for the U.S. infrastructure.

Righjt. Just what we need, less Federal regulation. We all saw how well that worked out for the financial industry. I'm usually with Prod. Lessig, but have to draw the line on this one. What we need is a reboot, not a destructive reformat. As new technologies come on line we're going to need good government -- smart government -- to prevent the recreation of the kinds of monopoly domination that we saw in the last century, like the old AT&T.

Righjt. Just what we need, less Federal regulation. We all saw how well that worked out for the financial industry. I'm usually with Prod. Lessig, but have to draw the line on this one. What we need is a reboot, not a destructive reformat. As new technologies come on line we're going to need good government -- smart government -- to prevent the recreation of the kinds of monopoly domination that we saw in the last century, like the old AT&T.