In a Congressional oversight hearing shortly after he took office, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said:

“When the market works and there’s sufficient competition, then the FCC has no need to act. When the market isn’t working, and the consumers could benefit from policies to promote competition, then the Commission MUST act.”

Yet, the FCC is moving to regulate broadband providers in the absence of market failure. Why?

Could have to do with the millions of dollars that Google, which favors regulation of ISPs, gave to the Obama campaign?

Or the nearly equal amount it gave to the Obama transition team?

Or the tens of thousands of dollars Google contributed toward the inauguration?

Or the presence of several Google employees and executives in paid and unpaid advisory posts within the Administration?

Or the presence of Google’s former chief lobbyist, Andrew McLaughlin, in a high ranking position within the administration? (Note: McLaughlin was recently confirmed to still be communicating with his colleagues at Google regarding lobbying internally for regulation of ISPs, but was given only a slap on the wrist. Why?)

Or the fact that the Chairman Genachowski’s press secretary, prior to joining the FCC, was the chief PR spokesperson at not one but TWO lobbying groups which lobby for Google’s regulatory agenda?

Or the fact that the Chairman has granted numerous and frequent audiences to lobbying groups such as the New America Foundation, Free Press, Media Access Project, and Public Knowledge (all of which lobby for Google) but will not schedule a single meeting with small ISPs—vital small businesses which provide broadband where other companies won’t—who might be hurt by Google’s lobbying agenda?

Or the fact that the FCC’s recent “workshops” on its “open Internet” agenda have been “stacked”—with proponents of onerous regulation far outnumbering those who opposed it or even questioned it?

All of this is quite troubling to those of us who actually have it as our mission to provide high quality broadband to consumers—and would be hindered in this by the proposed regulations. (In fact, merely the threat of Title II regulation has scared away the last outside investor in our own company, leaving us completely self-funded with no prospect of obtaining outside capital.)

But lately, we’ve stopped getting responses to our missives to the FCC. The process is now driven by corporate lobbying and partisan politics, and people from the “real world,” with real concerns, need not bother to try to be heard.

Sad.

Brett,

Thanks for the great comment!

I have not doubt that business owners like you shuld have an active voice in any regulatory agenda that will affect competition going forward. The FCC should look carefully at any regulation of markets that will stifle investment and job creation going forward. This industry was builit on private investment from entrepreneurs just like you who have the (where-with-all) to maake a positive difference in the communities you serve. Keep voicing your opinion; help create a coalition of business owners, wanting the same fairness as yourself, to present a united voice.

keep