Obama and Net Neutrality

[Thoughtful Thug]

So all these ISP companies is lobbying in Washington to prevent some kind of new modified regulatory statute so that all consumers can have equal access to faster broadband connection, and the later possibility of ISP companies soon will regulate what content we all now are free to see?

I can't forsee what will happen but it does seem to me that the FCC chairman (and the committee) are postponing on whether if FCC is ought to be the sole authority on broadband policy, and leave it to the ISP companies to single-handedly make business decisions that could potentially stifle consumer's access to any applications on the Web.

I thought that Obama proposed the "National Broadband Plan." And that it is time for the FCC to now reclassify the broadband law, as well as to stregthen the agency's power of regulating the ISP industry.

FCC Chairman Genachowski expected to leave broadband services deregulated






By Cecilia Kang
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 3, 2010

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission has indicated he wants to keep broadband services deregulated, according to sources, even as a federal court decision has exposed weaknesses in the agency's ability to be a strong watchdog over the companies that provide access to the Web.

The FCC currently has "ancillary" authority over broadband providers such as Comcast, AT&T and Verizon and must adequately justify actions over those providers. Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the agency had exceeded its authority in 2008 when it applied sanctions against Comcast.

The ruling cast doubt over the FCC's ability to create a "net neutrality" rule that would force Internet service providers to treat all services and applications on the Web equally.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is expected to respond soon to the court ruling. Three sources at the agency said Genachowski has not made a final decision but has indicated in recent discussions that he is leaning toward keeping in place the current regulatory framework for broadband services but making some changes that would still bolster the FCC's chances of overseeing some broadband policies.

The sources said Genachowski thinks "reclassifying" broadband to allow for more regulation would be overly burdensome on carriers and would deter investment. But they said he also thinks the current regulatory framework would lead to constant legal challenges to the FCC's authority every time it attempted to pursue a broadband policy.

"The telephone and cable companies will object to any path the chairman takes," said Art Brodsky, a spokesman for Public Knowledge, a media public interest group. "He might as well take the one that best protects consumers and is most legally sound."

The sources spoke on the condition of anonymity because a final decision hasn't been made and because of the sensitive nature of the issue. FCC spokeswoman Jen Howard would say only that Genachowski has not made a final decision.

Telecommunications companies would cheer a decision from the FCC to retain the current regulatory structure.

"It should come as no surprise . . . that leading financial analysts and technology commentators have questioned this path," the biggest telecommunications and cable trade groups wrote in a letter to Genachowski last week, warning against further regulation. "Thus it is hard to imagine a regulatory policy more at odds with the commission's goal of encouraging 'private investment and market-driven innovation.' "

Supporters of net neutrality -- companies such as Google and Skype as well as public interest groups -- have called for the agency to shift broadband Internet services more clearly under the agency's authority, saying consumers would be more vulnerable to business decisions that could cut off competition and access to applications on the Web. And they said the agency could strip broadband services of many of the rules that apply to other telecom services.

 

[warpus]

Man, we totally need net neutrality.. Hope this ends up working out in our favour

 

[illram]

The court case that castrated the FCC was a sign that we need to stop trying to shove a square peg into a round hole. Congress needs to take action on this to ensure the Net remains a vigorous free flowing conduit of information. (In other words WE'RE ALL DOOMED!!)

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

The court case that castrated the FCC was a sign that we need to stop trying to shove a square peg into a round hole. Congress needs to take action on this to ensure the Net remains a vigorous free flowing conduit of information. (In other words WE'RE ALL DOOMED!!)

During the Bush-era, the Federal Appeals Court ruled that the agency lacks authority to regulate the broadband providers - like you said.

But it can be easily overturned by having all the votes by its five commissioners to change that, and he has all the votes. WTH is Genachowski waiting for?

 

[illram]

The court case we're talking about happened last month IIRC. (But the activity occurred in 2008). There are a few possibilities. One, the FCC doesn't want to re-classify broadband as Title 2, which is what I think they were thinking about doing, because of the current political climate and the upcoming midterms. With the furor over the EPA's regulatory push for mandatory GHG reporting perhaps Obama wants them to hold tight until the political winds signal the appropriate weather for that move. Also he might be more buddy buddy with telecom giants than people think, and telecom giants don't want that to happen at all.

Two, it would get challenged and could potentially wind up really hurting them if the court didn't like that route either, although I am not very familiar with the legislation empowering the FCC so I can't speak of the likelihood of that either way.

I read a NY Times article recently that had an interesting take on this--basically the court case was the worst of all worlds because the decision was narrow enough to give Congress deniability of the need to act on legislation, leaving the FCC completely on their own until they are categorically denied of all alternatives. Which they don't want to try, apparently. In the end I personally think it won't be settled until Congress does something, but that might never happen.