Also, I wonder what all of you make of net neutrality in light of this– how is this movement working as a form of “popular policymaking?” What was not that long ago a pretty wonky issue has in the last few years gotten a good deal of genuine grassroots support (plus no small amount of help from Google, of course…) and now might actually end up making some real headway as policy. What’s your take on it?

But Cynthia’s point that the FCC is trapped in its role really is the point, and I suppose my post’s real message is that the FCC can begin breaking out of this role only when it begins to truly share power with the public. Treating the public as “consumer” or “citizen” or “commenter” is not just laziness or habit–these tropes are in fact among the ways that the FCC has historically _avoided_ sharing power with the public. Maybe treating them as “policymakers” who can provide an energetic and creative third force is, in the networked age, finally a realizable ambition.

Google is a free agent, so to speak, in that it is accountable mostly to its markets. Google also likes to claim that its innovations are all about the user experience–whatever the R&D costs. The FCC, on the other hand, is about as far from a free agent as an institution could be! How could it ever hope to innovate or be flexible or creative? The FCC has to justify its actions not so much to users (all of us) as it does to its constituencies of powerful political and industrial institutions. Could that be where things tend to get bogged down, innovation-wise? Couldn’t an anti-regulation proponent take this example as another piece of evidence that government regulators by definition cannot innovate or engage the publics and markets?

Will be interesting to see how deep and far the “new” FCC can rethink its role. I like that the Obama administration is full of folks (like Cass Sunstein) who don’t know for sure how well regulation works but would like to keep trying to figure out something new that doesn’t fall into the old traps. Allowing YouTube video embeds on FCC comment pages might be a step in the right direction!

What does the FCC have? In the public’s mind they are the people who drove Howard Stern off the airwaves, seem responsible for letting terrestial radio to go to pot, and want to fine people for Janet Jackson’s wardrobe incident. Because the FCC is a national regulator that does not build initiatives and products, not only are their hands tied but the public doesn’t trust you that much when you say they want your comments after a history of fining their favorite performers into a paid service.

So what to do? While many people would like to make policy “sexy” via new media thinktanks, see McChesney, et. al., how about the FCC run a campaign that essentially says, “South Korea has a much better internet and Finland thinks internet access is a human right, why don’t we?” It’s a national body perhaps it ought to invoke the one sexy rhetorical element in a regulator’s arsenal: nationalism.

Just a thought.