Strong Reactions To FCC Chief's Broadband Move
May 5, 2010
| 8:25 PM
Network Neutrality supporters praised reports Wednesday that FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has decided to reclassify some aspects of broadband service as a telecommunication service, a move expected to give the commission more authority over broadband.
The move comes after the commission's authority over broadband providers was put in doubt in the wake of a Court of Appeals' ruling last month that found the FCC overstepped its authority in enforcing network neutrality principles against Comcast. Many observers and even the FCC said the decision would make it difficult for the FCC to implement some aspects of the national broadband plan.
In a statement, Senate Commerce Communications Subcommittee Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., said he had talked with Genachowski Wednesday about his decision and praised the FCC chief for taking a "measured middle path" to address the issues left in the wake of the Comcast ruling. While saying he supports Genachowski's move, Kerry said he is open to working with the FCC, lawmakers and other stakeholders on legislation related to the FCC's authority.
"This change of classification is a moderate, pragmatic step necessary to ensure that the FCC can keep faith with its core mission," Kerry said. "The commission still must build a factual record showing that its reclassification is well-reasoned, and I look forward to that process and to hearing from all stakeholders."
Senate Commerce Chairman John (Jay) Rockefeller D-W.Va., and House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., wrote Genachowski Wednesday urging him to consider classifying broadband as a telecommunications service under title II of the telecommunications act. Internet access is currently classified as a more lightly regulated information service.
Public interest groups and others who favor rules that would require broadband providers to treat all content the same applauded the move, but added that they want to ensure the proposal goes far enough to protect consumers.
"This is a welcome announcement," Public Knowledge President Gigi Sohn said in a statement. "We look forward to participating in this very crucial debate to ensure that even a 'weak' Title II will still be strong enough to protect consumers." Free Press President and CEO Josh Silver added that, "This is extremely welcome news. We reserve judgment, however, on whether the FCC has gone far enough to protect consumers with this new proposal."
Open Internet Coalition Executive Director Markham Erickson noted that the "limited reclassification of the transmission component of broadband access will allow the FCC to clarify its legal authority to ensure consumers are fully protected against blocking or degradation of Web sites and applications of their choice by broadband providers. ... It is a win-win for consumers, Internet and technology companies, and broadband access providers."
However "limited" supporters described Genachowski's move, it was still met by strong criticism by some lawmakers and free market groups.
"I am extremely disappointed that Chairman Genachowski has chosen to go down this path as re-regulating the Internet under outdated monopoly telephone rules is a major mistake," Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev, a member of the Senate Commerce Committee said in a statement. "Using this heavy-handed approach to regulation under Title II will jeopardize private investment and innovation in broadband and inject regulatory uncertainty throughout the entire Internet."
Phil Kerpen, Americans for Prosperity's vice president of policy, argued that the move would reverse a decision made under the last Democrat to head the FCC, William Kennard, who chose not to regulate Internet access as a telecommunications service.
"The appropriate responses to the court decision in Comcast v. FCC are either to ask Congress to pass a law giving the FCC jurisdiction to regulate Internet access or to choose not to regulate," said Kerpin, describing the move as an "astonishing power grab and a tragically misguided policy."
Join the Discussion
The National Journal Group has the right (but not the obligation) to monitor the comments and to remove any materials it deems inappropriate.
Comments powered by Disqus