Reading Cook County Commissioner Steele’s op-ed in The Huffington Post made me think of the phrase “carpetbagger.” Free Press, and other groups like it, come into our communities and pass themselves off as people who care. Commissioner Steele’s assessment that Free Press has no roots in our community has been repeatedly evident in the organization’s failure to discuss how net neutrality can expand the number of minority broadband subscribers. Instead, we have been on the receiving end of the same old, paternalistic, “we know what’s best for you” mantra; one that is bankrupt policy wise and insults the intelligence and integrity of our community.

I share Commissioner Steele’s desire for informed debate, but given Free Press’ insistence on espousing a policy that has no impact on increasing minority subscribership or reducing costs, I won’t hold my breath for reasoned debate from Free Press.

An article by The Hill’s Sara Jerome recently caught my eye.  While I found the article to be for the most part on point, I had to take issue with a statement that the Minority Media Telecommunications Council has ties to the telecom industry.

With the exception of receiving conference sponsorships from telecommunications companies as well as a wide range of other funding sources, the MMTC has no relationship to telecommunications companies.

The MMTC is successful in addressing concerns impacting minorities in media and telecommunications because it has been able for 24 years to maintain its objectivity. Given that it is an important voice in the area of diversity, it is only natural and fitting that telecommunications companies may choose to sponsor the MMTC’s annual conferences.

Anyone who believes that the Federal Communications Commission will “forebear” from dropping the regulatory hammer on the anvil is grossly mistaken. Title II is a slippery slope, especially when you consider the level of transparency the FCC wants to impose on broadband providers.

For example, requiring broadband companies to provide consumers with certain network management information may sound innocuous enough, but my professional experience has shown that such transparency has the potential to cause overreaction.

Let’s say that one of Comcast’s servers is not able to receive information from an e-mail provider’s server. The technical difficulty is on the e-mail provider’s end. Unfortunately for Comcast, its broadband subscriber is suspicious and claims that Comcast is purposefully discriminating against the e-mail provider so that Comcast’s e-mail service looks more attractive. The subscriber files a complaint with the FCC or his local consumer affairs agency and next thing you know, regulators are requesting meetings, documents, and reports, to address a problem that is not the fault of Comcast or has been resolved via the voluntary rerouting of traffic.

This is a true story. The waste of man-hours and taxpayer money will triple if overly zealous regulators and misinformed consumers are allowed the transparency that the FCC’s alleged “third way” seeks.

Take it from a former regulator. Regulators will find a way to use every hammer at their disposal. There will be no such thing as light touch under Title II.

eWeek.com’s Wayne Rash made a point last weekend that competition may incentivize consumers to leave incumbent broadband providers and use the networks of new entrants.  This is important for at least three reasons.

First, while Congress is ultimately responsible for the regulation of commerce, regulation of commerce can be easily translated into promotion of commerce by avoiding onerous regulatory burdens that net neutrality can impose. Congress can do this by either not passing any new legislation, or pass legislation that reaffirms that the Internet is not subject to reclassification as telecommunications. In other words, allow the market to continue working as it has over the past three decades.

Second, the Federal Communications Commission has focused too much from the very outset on regulation as opposed to competition. If the FCC were serious about promoting innovation and market entry, as well as carrying out Congress’ mandate of light touch regulation, it would have either not pursued this “third way” course of action or proposed rules that would actually aid market entry. Such an approach would have been similar to the underlying legislative philosophy of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Finally, consumers in the minority community, who are grossly underserved, as well as minority-owned content and broadband providers, would benefit more from a broadband framework based on competition versus regulation. A framework that encourages competition would allow for the strategic partnerships that are integral to a minority-owned firm’s ability to navigate the technical and financial barriers to the broadband and content provider markets. Unfortunately, the FCC’s third way proposal does not support these necessary partnerships.

The E-Commerce Times’ Sidney Hill does not expect much action from the FCC on net neutrality.  The title and theme of his article may have been a bit premature.

Today, the Federal Communications Commission voted along party lines, 3-2, to issue a notice of inquiry regarding alternatives for implementing a legal framework for regulating broadband access. I do believe that the action that this vote sparks may be a bit too hot for this FCC to handle.

First, the overall political environment for government intervention is not favorable.   Americans are increasingly wary of government intervention under the guise of protecting citizens from big, bad industry. Expectations are that this fall the electorate will vent its frustration on everything from Congress’ passage of the health care bill to the bailout of the auto industry to supporting the bonuses given to bankers in spite of a lack of lending on the part of the very banks who received bailouts. The FCC’s attempts to reclassify broadband may come under similar scrutiny.

Second, whatever policy is formally decided upon by the FCC will be challenged by broadband providers. Today’s kangaroo decision to seek comment on three policy options may prove to be a farce given that option three, reclassification of broadband as a telecommunications service, is already endorsed by FCC chairman Julius Genachowski and his Democratic cohorts, Commissioner Mignon Clyburn and Commissioner Michael Copps.

But the FCC will have bigger concerns once they formally decide on the third way. The courts will more than likely reject this sham policy, holding that the FCC, after all its policy wrangling, has still not complied with the requirements of FCC v. Comcast. It’s one thing to say we want to do something over and over again. It’s quite another to have permission to do it.