Making the FCC Your Business

FCC Internet guru, Robert Cannon, says ISPs need to take part in a little thing called participatory government if they really want their voice to be heard on regulatory issues impacting the future of the industry.

by Jim Wagner ISP-Lists Managing Editor [May 31, 2001]

Most Internet service providers have had a tough time with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which was crafted with the intention of opening up the industry to competition.

But to most ISP owners, it seems no matter where they turn, they are getting the short end of the regulatory stick. Many of these same business people are nervous, because if the Telecom Act of 1996 opened the market up for ISPs, most operators would really hate to see what a closed market looks like.

Blame it on the reign
ISPs problems with the Telecom 1996 Act are many—the law does not provide regulatory recourse for ISPs that must try to compete with SBC Communication's predatory digital subscriber line pricing. It does not provide a stopgap when Qwest Communications steals an ISPs DSL subscribers by marketing directly to a client-ISPs users. The Telecom Act can not stop Bell South from putting a southern swing on tariffs anymore than it can prohibit Verizon from falsely accusing ISPs of creating day-long service outages. So much for creating competition?

In many cases, the original intent of the law has been diluted—led astray not so much by faulty legal interpretations or regional Bell operating companies (RBOC) uncanny abilities to hide behind loopholes. The law has been weakened by telecom cash spent to ensure that legislators and regulators permit RBOCs to act like royal authorities—ruling all those that reside in their sovereign service areas.

Reign check
According to Robert Cannon, Federal Communications Commission Office of Plans and Policy senior counsel for Internet issues, many ISPs, eager to find a scapegoat, mistakenly blame the regulatory agency for the failure of the 1996 Telecom Act.

Cannon, who has been a vocal member among the Internet community for years, is now the FCC's point man on all things Internet-related. He is quick to point out that the FCC isn't the final authority on the Internet.

"One of the things that many people don't realize is that the FCC doesn't regulate the Internet," Cannon said. "What we do is regulate everything the Internet depends on at the transport layer."

Transport roots
The decision to focus on transport, Cannon says, hearkens back to the dawn of the Internet, when the FCC made its landmark Carterphone Decision in 1868 with allowed other phone makers to compete with the Bell System for equipment sales.

The decision was the result of a complaint filed by Tom Carter, a telephone equipment maker, who wanted to put his two-way transceiver on the national exchange owned by AT&T, creating one of the first Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) methods of interconnection. The FCC ruling paved the way for developing advanced telephone services via interconnection or colocation and established rivals' rights to secure carriage over the Bell network.

"That ruling gave ISPs the right to provide telecommunication services," Cannon said. "And that's what the FCC gave ISPs—the right to compete."

Cannon fodder
Cannon has been around computers and the Internet his entire life. He has many memories of his introduction to the world of computers through his father, who "wired boards" for an IBM competitor while Cannon was growing up.

After earning his law degree from American University, Cannon started a Web site known as the Washington Internet Project, which he considered a secondary interest at the time. But what started as a hobby soon grew into a profession. Cannon's website was regarded by many industry players as a definitive source for information about Internet issues on the Beltway—and Cannon's name was planted on the map.

Cannon still considers the website a pro-bono project dedicated to promoting awareness of and participation in federal regulatory developments that affect the Internet," while he continues to work on Net-related policy and procedures at the FCC.

Loose cannon
The Washington project provides a solid foothill for Cannon to fulfill his current duties as the FCC's Internet guru—a position that doesn't carry as much weight or prominence as other bureau seats at the agency. But this seemingly inconsequential post stands in the limelight, when considering the volume of questions Cannon answers for both FCC commissioners and the outside world.

"My job is to provide expertise to the FCC," Cannon said. "To be able to answer questions when they arrive and if I don’t know the answer, find out the answer for them."

Cannon said the position originated while Cannon was working on a Y2K advisory board with Michael Powell, then-Commissioner of the FCC, and Robert Pepper, OPP Chief.

"At the time, I was one of the few people stupid enough not to go out in the private sector like everyone else and get stock options and make millions of dollars," he joked.

But in hindsight, a good decision on Cannon's part, now that many of those same people are holding worthless stock options or looking for a new career in the non-dot-com sector.

Some of Cannon's most vocal critics are ISP business people who deride him for what they see as an oversight by the agency regarding competition. According to most complaints, Verizon, Qwest, Bell South and SBC are more powerful because they face less competition in the marketplace then they did five years ago the Telecom Act became the law of the land. Cannon's response to his critics and those that decry current telecom law?

Simple, "get involved."

Go to page 2: Participatory Government >