<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Share your thoughts on FCC&#8217;s &#8220;Third Way&#8221; Broadband Framework</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.knightcomm.org/share-your-thoughts-on-chairman-genachowskis/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.knightcomm.org/share-your-thoughts-on-chairman-genachowskis/</link>
	<description>A project of the Aspen Institute and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 May 2012 09:32:22 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Brett Glass</title>
		<link>http://www.knightcomm.org/share-your-thoughts-on-chairman-genachowskis/#comment-1384</link>
		<dc:creator>Brett Glass</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 May 2010 01:34:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.knightcomm.org/?p=3761#comment-1384</guid>
		<description>Bob Quinn&#039;s recent article at http://attpublicpolicy.com/government-policy/pickett%E2%80%99s-charge-redux/ says it all. The Commission seems to be pursuing a rash, ineffective dead end strategy out of sheer outrage that a court -- correctly -- found that its power over the Internet had limits.

I myself run a small, independent ISP whose business prospects (in particular, my ability to find investors and hence my ability to build out broadband to unserved areas) have already been badly hurt by the FCC&#039;s actions. Unfortunately, the voices of those of us with &quot;boots on the ground&quot; who are actually doing the hard work of deploying broadband are seldom heard inside the Beltway. At the countless policy &quot;summits,&quot; &quot;forums,&quot; and &quot;events,&quot; one only sees the same dozen or so corporate lobbyists -- some of whom claim to be working for &quot;public interest&quot; groups but in fact have ties to an interested party. None of them has ever hooked up a single broadband connection for a customer or actually run a small business or a broadband provider.

I believe that the FCC should take a step back and consider whether its apparent goal -- seizing the power to impose &quot;network neutrality&quot; regulations -- is worth pursuing. Especially since it would actually be counter to the goals in the Commission&#039;s own National Broadband Plan. I think that the country would be far better served if the FCC opted instead to promote competition and transparency rather than trying to impose onerous, expensive, and unnecessary regulations upon ISPs. For a more detailed discussion, see my comments to the FCC at http://www.brettglass.com/nprmreplycomments./pdf</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bob Quinn&#8217;s recent article at <a href="http://attpublicpolicy.com/government-policy/pickett%E2%80%99s-charge-redux/" rel="nofollow">http://attpublicpolicy.com/government-policy/pickett%E2%80%99s-charge-redux/</a> says it all. The Commission seems to be pursuing a rash, ineffective dead end strategy out of sheer outrage that a court &#8212; correctly &#8212; found that its power over the Internet had limits.</p>
<p>I myself run a small, independent ISP whose business prospects (in particular, my ability to find investors and hence my ability to build out broadband to unserved areas) have already been badly hurt by the FCC&#8217;s actions. Unfortunately, the voices of those of us with &#8220;boots on the ground&#8221; who are actually doing the hard work of deploying broadband are seldom heard inside the Beltway. At the countless policy &#8220;summits,&#8221; &#8220;forums,&#8221; and &#8220;events,&#8221; one only sees the same dozen or so corporate lobbyists &#8212; some of whom claim to be working for &#8220;public interest&#8221; groups but in fact have ties to an interested party. None of them has ever hooked up a single broadband connection for a customer or actually run a small business or a broadband provider.</p>
<p>I believe that the FCC should take a step back and consider whether its apparent goal &#8212; seizing the power to impose &#8220;network neutrality&#8221; regulations &#8212; is worth pursuing. Especially since it would actually be counter to the goals in the Commission&#8217;s own National Broadband Plan. I think that the country would be far better served if the FCC opted instead to promote competition and transparency rather than trying to impose onerous, expensive, and unnecessary regulations upon ISPs. For a more detailed discussion, see my comments to the FCC at <a href="http://www.brettglass.com/nprmreplycomments./pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.brettglass.com/nprmreplycomments./pdf</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

