The Balkans War has started again. If Russia and China have their way, we could see a fragmentation of the World Wide Web that was inconceivable over twenty years ago.

Robert McDowell, admittedly my favorite Federal Communications Commission member, raised this very scary observation in a piece he wrote in yesterday’s The Wall Street Journal. In short, China and Russia would support an assertion of control over the Internet by the International Telecommunications Union.

If it’s not broke, why fix it? “Fixing” it may mean handing nations not known for their celebration of the freedom of expression a new tool to dampen the exchange of ideas, as well as make a little money for their coffers by charging for access to foreign websites.

The United Nations will reportedly start discussing this proposal as part of treaty negotiations that created the ITU. Discussions begin 27 February 2012.

Well, this latest development should make net neutrality proponents here in the United States very happy. It is going to be very tough for the United States to say no to heavy handed regulation of Internet traffic when our own Federal Communications Commission has allowed for the same approach to Internet traffic here in the United States. How can we tell China, Russia, and other members of the new Internet-communist bloc that management of Internet traffic by a government agency is a bad thing when we require transparency on network management via net neutrality rules?

It looks like Congress may be headed to signing off on a payroll tax extension. Unfortunately for broadband consumers, the package includes allowing the Federal Communications Commission the flexibility to impose on large carriers, such as AT&T and Verizon, conditions designed to ensure competition should carriers win bids for broadcast spectrum.

Allowing larger companies to bid is the appropriate approach this legislation should take. I’m still not comfortable with a regulatory agency creating conditions that ensure competition. If those conditions were to give Sprint and T-Mobile, two companies that have taken mismanagement to a new level, some additional advantage, you may as well keep more efficient and better managed carriers from bidding for spectrum.

The Federal Communications Commission today released a Declaratory Ruling reminding carriers of the long standing prohibition on actions that block, choke, reduce, or otherwise restrict telephone traffic. Should these practices lead to call termination or other call quality issues, the FCC may find the practices in violation of sections 201 and 202 of the Communications Act.

The declaratory ruling is a result of claims made by rural telephone consumers and local exchange companies that long distance phone companies were violating statute by engaging in traffic restrictive actions. At the root of these problems may be what the Declaratory Ruling refers to as third-party routing providers. Allegedly, long distance carriers are using these routing providers for the purpose of reducing or eliminating termination charges.

The FCC believes consumers risk being harmed by these practices. Poor quality of calls; delays in call setups; long ringing; or not receiving calls at all appear to be some of the problems rural consumers are facing, according to the FCC.

Begs the question, is the current market structure, where third-party providers are handing off calls to rate-of-return local exchange companies, benefiting consumer welfare? I also wonder if this Declaratory Ruling would stand in court.

Good to see more advocates for a less restrictive market stepping up and getting more aggressive with vocalizing their concerns. That’s what the Center for Individual Freedom did in a blog post last week addressing the apparent overreach that the Federal Communications Commission has been executing for almost three years.

Sometimes I think regulators, the FCC included, forget which country we are living in. Seems to be a love affair with all things extra-national no matter what side of the aisle the trouble maker sits on. Newt Gingrich would like us to use some Chilean form of retirement accounts to satisfy the social security issue. Julius Genachowski constantly reminds us that South Korea has greater broadband deployment and speeds than we do. Let’s not forget that the Republican Party believes that President Obama wants to make a European socialist system.

The last charge is pure nonsense, of course, but Mr. Genachowski and his FCC sure tempt many to fall for that lie when his FCC focuses on everything else but how best to get spectrum into the hands of carriers that are in the best position to put that national resource to its optimal use.

Blair Levin stated during the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council’s Broadband and Social Justice in support of incentive auctions as described in S.28, the Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act. The Act allows broadcast stations that voluntarily give up some of their spectrum to collect part of the bid proceeds, while the remainders of the proceeds are placed into funds that would be used to build out broadband facilities in rural areas as well as fund an interoperable public safety network.

Mr. Levin indicates that he has no problem with the Federal Communications Commission exercising flexibility in allowing its staff to “develop options and then allow the political leadership, both at the FCC and the Congress to apply their policy preferences.”

The bill specifically allows the FCC to “determine, at its discretion, what new use that the Commission determines, in its discretion, are attributable to the licensee’s relinquished spectrum usage.”

My take on the language is that it’s too vague. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation could tighten this bill up by amending the language to reflect the specific uses of the freed up spectrum i.e., mobile wireless telecommunications, and that the FCC will not prevent any wireless company with the technical and financial resources from participating in an incentive auction.

Why is this important? Because it ensures that all competitors are able to obtain this resource so that they can compete in the wireless market and provide consumers additional choice. You can’t call an auction a competitive mechanism for distributing spectrum if you are not ensuring each company has a chance to bid for spectrum.