It's the end of the presidency, and that means that it's time for the politicians to do the favors that they will exchange for jobs in the private sector.

by Alex Goldman ISP-Planet Managing Editor [September 16, 2008]

It was at the end of his presidency that Clinton pardoned Mark Rich. It was at the start of his that Ford pardoned Nixon. Generally, if you're going to do favors for the politically connected, you do it at the end of your term.

So is the FCC up to the same tricks?

Last week, Karl Bode at BroadbandReports wrote, "A lack of progress on the broadband policy front isn't because people are engaged in healthy debate over our broadband future, it's because incumbent operators have the American government wrapped around their finger. You would think this is something that people on both sides of the aisle could agree needs fixing."

That's problem one: that the debate is bought and paid for by the lobbyists.

So while most of the country wants better data, the FCC wants less. Bruce Kushnick at TeleTruth wrote last week, "While Congress and others have been holding meetings about the paucity of the FCC's data on broadband, on Monday, September 8th, the FCC decided to erase your ability to know the truth about AT&T, Verizon and Qwest's behavior and acts on multiple topics pertaining to America's telecom and broadband future. It is a slap to the face of everyone reading this. Now, even the analysts will not be given enough data to see just how badly we've been hosed."

Commissioner Copps complained [.pdf] that the "elimination of these cost assignment and allocation rules undermines the Commission’s ability to promote competition, consumer confidence, investor security, and the public interest, as Commissioner Copps and I detailed in our joint statement earlier this year. It diminishes our ability to meet our statutory obligation to ensure that telecommunications services are offered on rates, terms and conditions that are just, reasonable and not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory. It renders meaningless important competitive safeguards that the Commission unanimously adopted just a year ago. Moreover, it will make harder the road to comprehensive universal service and intercarrier compensation reform. For all these reasons, I dissent from this portion of the item."

Even one of those who voted for the order, Commissioner Tate, complained [.pdf] "rather than granting forbearance first and then approving a compliance plan, perhaps it would be more logically sound if the Commission had all the relevant information—including the compliance plan—prior to making the decision to expand relief."

Martin and the commissioners voting in favor of the change say that the data collection that they have eliminated is a legacy of another era. But the timing of the order looks more like a political favor paid in advance, to be cashed in after the commissioners leave office.

— End