The FCC’s (read Chairman Kevin Martin’s) plan to set aside spectrum for a free, nationwide broadband network is also on yet another path for failure when eventually it is scrutinized by the courts.
Kevin Martin
FCC Chairman
Martin, who’s gearing up for a post-FCC political career, rejected a similar proposal by M2Z last year after the startup offered to build an ad-supported, content-filtered broadband network. It’s difficult to identify one reason for the rejection. M2Z got snippy with the FCC for being so slow to review their application; application subsequently (and speedily) rejected. M2Z also wanted the spectrum for free, offering the government a revenue-sharing deal.
This year, Martin pulls out his own version of universal wireless broadband, complete with the same problems M2Z faced and a couple of others. M2Z’s proposal, if approved, would have set a precedent likely to be of grave concern to Net Neutrality advocates. At its core it would be an Internet service provider actively censoring content coming across its network.
Martin would rather the government be in charge of censorship, it would seem, and the plan now before the Commission requires all content be G-rated, or in the words of the proposal, not “harmful” to a five-year-old. “There is not a digital bucket big enough to hold all the content that would fit within this definition,” quips Leslie Harris in her editorial at ABC News’s site.
Such restrictions could, in theory, even apply to news headlines with content interpreted to be harmful to children. Martin’s never really had a problem with the philosophy of government-mandated wholesomeness. Before his failed crusades against fleeting expletives and wardrobe malfunctions, both recently struck down as unconstitutional, Martin seemed bent on regulating content on cable and satellite channels in the same way as broadcast channels.
Not surprisingly, he wasn’t able to get that initiative off the ground, probably not due to protests among the citizenry and more likely due to pressures from telecom buddies (Martin was a telecom lobbyist before he was rewarded with FCC leadership), who are your next major cable TV competitors.
No worries, though. The Supreme Court should be able to keep the next administrative travesty in check as well.
So far 22 public interest groups from across the political spectrum have come out against Martin’s proposal, a few of them legally filing against it and calling the plan “unwise” as well as unconsitutional. These same critics argue “a tsunami of lawsuits” is likely as a result, especially since the plan will create a government blacklist of websites.
