President Obama’s support of the strongest possible net neutrality rules riled up Washington this morning. The president didn’t change anyone’s mind, instead giving everyone a chance to restate their own strongly held views on the subject.
Obama made the consumer groups and Internet companies pushing for net neutrality very happy:
“Today the Obama administration expanded its leadership to promote an open Internet by supporting the strongest tools to prevent blocking or throttling of Internet traffic, and by also supporting the strongest tools to deter fast lanes and prioritized traffic on the public’s most essential communications platform of the 21st century.
“Starting with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s push to open the Internet globally, the administration’s strong antitrust enforcement to support competition in the digital marketplace, and now strong open Internet rules for the U.S., the Obama administration has demonstrated world leadership to promote freedom of expression.
“We are also encouraged that FCC Chairman [Tom] Wheeler has expressed a commitment to consider broad use of Title II tools to ensure that the administration’s and Chairman Wheeler’s goals are fully enforced through effective rules and oversight.” —Gene Kimmelman, president, Public Knowledge
“The president has made it clear that he believes the Internet is an essential service and that the prosperity of our country depends on an open Internet. We fully agree.” —Nuala O’Connor, president, Center for Democracy & Technology
While opponents of Title II said they also support an open Internet, they said that Title II is too old to be applicable, that Obama was inappropriately trying to put his finger on the scale at the Federal Communications Commission, and that reclassifying broadband would give dictators in other countries carte blanche to control the Internet at home:
“Comcast (CMCSA) and cable companies (along with the telcos) have led the broadband revolution, being the first to roll out America’s fastest broadband speeds across the country. As the White House itself acknowledged in its broadband report in 2013, this only happened because we were not subject to the intrusive regulatory regime designed for a different era.
“To attempt to impose a full-blown Title II regime now, when the classification of cable broadband has always been as an information service, would reverse nearly a decade of precedent, including findings by the Supreme Court that this classification was proper. This would be a radical reversal that would harm investment and innovation, as today’s immediate stock market reaction demonstrates. And such a radical reversal of consistent contrary precedent should be taken up by the Congress.” —David Cohen, executive vice president, Comcast
“The president’s directive discredits U.S. efforts to prevent countries like Russia and China from destroying the current international multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance and replacing it with government regulatory control. It is ironic that the president made his announcement while in China, which has long sought greater government control over the Internet and surely will be encouraged by the president’s statement.” —Senator John Sununu (R-N.H.) and former Representative Harold Ford, for Broadband for America
“We saw a significant negative impact on investment the last time restrictive Title II regulation was in place, and no one will benefit from returning to that failed policy. As manufacturers and suppliers who build the Internet backbone and supply the devices and services that ride over it, our companies strongly urge regulators to refrain from reclassification that will guarantee harm to consumers, the economy, and the very technologies we’re trying to protect.” —Scott Belcher, chief executive officer, Telecommunications Industry Association
“Verizon (VZ) supports the open Internet, and we continue to believe that the light-touch regulatory approach in place for the past two decades has been central to the Internet’s success. Reclassification under Title II, which for the first time would apply 1930s-era utility regulation to the Internet, would be a radical reversal of course that would in and of itself threaten great harm to an open Internet, competition, and innovation. That course will likely also face strong legal challenges and would likely not stand up in court. Moreover, this approach would be gratuitous. As all major broadband providers and their trade groups have conceded, the FCC already has sufficient authority under Section 706 to adopt rules that address any practices that threaten harm to consumers or competition, including authority to prohibit ‘paid prioritization.’ For effective, enforceable, legally sustainable net neutrality rules, the commission should look to Section 706.” —Edward McFadden, spokesman, Verizon
Obama’s statement was aimed at FCC Commissioner Wheeler, who issued a lengthy, if noncommittal, response:
“The president’s statement is an important and welcome addition to the record of the Open Internet proceeding. Like the president, I believe that the Internet must remain an open platform for free expression, innovation, and economic growth. We both oppose Internet fast lanes. The Internet must not advantage some to the detriment of others. We cannot allow broadband networks to cut special deals to prioritize Internet traffic and harm consumers, competition and innovation.
“As an independent regulatory agency we will incorporate the president’s submission into the record of the Open Internet proceeding. We welcome comment on it and how it proposes to use Title II of the Communications Act.
“In January, a federal court struck down rules that prevented Internet Service Providers from blocking and discriminating against online content. In May, the commission sought comment on how to best reinstate these rules to protect consumers and innovators online while remaining within the parameters of the legal road map the court established. The goal was simple: to reach the outcomes sought by the 2010 rules. We sought comment on using Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act, as discussed by the court to protect what the court described as the ‘virtuous circle’ of innovation that fosters broadband deployment and protects consumers.
“The purpose of the commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposal was to elicit comments. In the past several months, we’ve heard from millions of Americans from across the country. From the beginning I have pledged to finally bring to an end the years-long quest for rules that are upheld in court. In May we sought comment on both Section 706 and Title II and I promised that in this process all options would be on the table in order to identify the best legal approach to keeping the Internet open. That includes both the Section 706 option and the Title II reclassification. Recently, the commission staff began exploring ‘hybrid’ approaches, proposed by some members of Congress and leading advocates of net neutrality, which would combine the use of both Title II and Section 706.
“The more deeply we examined the issues around the various legal options, the more it has become plain that there is more work to do. The reclassification and hybrid approaches before us raise substantive legal questions. We found we would need more time to examine these to ensure that whatever approach is taken, it can withstand any legal challenges it may face. For instance, whether in the context of a hybrid or reclassification approach, Title II brings with it policy issues that run the gamut from privacy to universal service to the ability of federal agencies to protect consumers, as well as legal issues ranging from the ability of Title II to cover mobile services to the concept of applying forbearance on services under Title II.
“I am grateful for the input of the president and look forward to continuing to receive input from all stakeholders, including the public, members of Congress of both parties, including the leadership of the Senate and House committees, and my fellow commissioners. Ten years have passed since the commission started down the road towards enforceable Open Internet rules. We must take the time to get the job done correctly, once and for all, in order to successfully protect consumers and innovators online.”
