Intellectual Property Law

Battle of the Telecom Policy Op-Eds

By Cynthia Brumfield

During the past week, there has been a flurry of op-eds (and plain old eds) on telecom policy matters. The week started out with a Washington Post op-ed from FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell defending Comcast's use of P2P filtering technology as part of network management.

Today the Wall Street Journal editors slap around Republican FCC Chairman Kevin Martin for pushing an order that will punish Comcast for using that technology. (As an aside, the editorial starts out calling Martin's nomination to the Chairmanship a "bad personnel" decision by the Bush Administration. You've got to wonder where Martin goes when his term ends -- Republicans don't like him and Democrats won't embrace him.)

Tim Wu has an op-ed in the New York Times today in which he likens U.S. communications companies to OPEC. Bandwidth, like oil, is a resource controlled by a tight group, Wu argues. As silly as that sounds, Wu does make a valid plea in advocating for the abolition of the false scarcity rationale, which has limited competition in wireless communications.

For those who closely follow these issues, not one of these editorials held any surprises or advanced the debate or will change the outcome of anything. With the possible exception of Wu's editorial, they're just props in a political fight and really shed little light on the subjects at hand.

Who are these editorials aimed at? Surely not the public, because these are not grassroots issues. Policymakers and opinion leaders? Probably, because they're the only folks left who really read newspaper op-ed pages. The press and blogosphere? Undoubtedly, because a lot of journalists and wire reporters and bloggers (including me) are writing about these editorials because major newspapers still have swack when it comes to editorials.

But fundamentally these op-eds are designed to provide back-up or ballast for existing positions. Comcast can circulate the WSJ and McDowell editorial and consumer groups can circulate Wu's piece and everybody has something to point to in substantiating their arguments.

That's why lately my eyes glaze over at most traditional newspaper editorials or op-ed pieces. They're predictable and boring and no doubt instigated to be fodder for some special interest or particular pet cause.

Full post as published by IP Democracy on July 30, 2008 (boomark / email).