Obama says FCC should reclassify internet as a utility

[Luis Gonzalez]

So the conservative American Enterprise Institute hates Obama's proposal.

The libertarians at the Cato Institute hate Obama's proposal.

What do Liberals/Progressives think about it?

Some people think of the issue of net neutrality as comparable to that of getting cancer from power lines—as something that resonates in a specialized constituency of nutty left-wingers. But believe me, it’s very important. Net neutrality is to the internet what the First Amendment was to the Gutenberg era.  Without it, a few large firms—and maybe if the merger between Comcast and Time-Warner goes through, only one—will have an inordinate amount of power over what people hear, say, and see over the internet. They may use that power wisely, but the lesson of centuries is that it is better to have laws in place that incline them to do so.

President Barack Obama understands that. So did former Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Julius Genachowski and so, perhaps, does Tom Wheeler, his successor. But Obama’s FCC had done precious little to enforce net neutrality. This week, Wheeler introduced an outline of new regulations on net neutrality. They are profoundly inadequate, and, in any case, will probably be thrown out in court just as Genachowski’s were. Wheeler could do something, but he and Obama appear unwilling to spend any political capital by taking a stance that is strongly opposed by Comcast, Verizon, and other companies with powerful lobbies in Washington. A little background is in order.

Under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, the FCC can ensure “common carriers” like the telephone companies serve the “public interest” and do not discriminate in who can use their services. The act forbids—you can skip this, but I want readers to know how extensive the areas of regulation are—“discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.”

Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, there is a critical distinction between “telecommunications,” which are subject to Title II, and “information services,” which are not. Information services consist of “the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunication.” These services are subject to the vague provisions of Title I, which do not forbid the kind of discrimination that is illegal under Title II. When the 1996 act was passed, the internet—that is, the World Wide Web—was still in its infancy.

Some legal experts assumed that while a service sold on the internet would not be subject to Title II, the internet itself would be seen as a “common carrier.” It makes information available via the internet. That’s an eminently reasonable position, and has become more so as the internet has matured as a pure medium very similar to the telephone. But in 2002, the FCC, led by Republican Michael Powell, the son of Colin Powell, ruled that internet companies provided “information services” and were not subject to Title II regulation. That meant that they could charge different rates to different customers and even refuse service to some content providers.

Discrimination could lead, for instance, to an internet where some content providers or “edge providers” like Amazon were able to purchase higher speed, higher resolution service at the expense of their competitors, or where Comcast, eager to force consumers to use its own movie services, could penalize Netflix. In an extreme, but not inconceivable case, discrimination would penalize certain kinds of political speech over others. Net neutrality would mean that the large internet providers could not discriminate.

To create net neutrality, Obama’s FCC could redefine internet companies as telecommunications services or it could try to write regulations against discrimination that it hoped could get past the courts. In May 2010, Genachowski boldly announced that he was redefining cable as a telecommunications service. That would have opened the door to re-regulating it. But the cable and wireless industry stepped in and were seconded by Republicans in the House and Senate. Genachowski backed down, and in December of that year introduced a proposal for net neutrality regulations for wired communications. As a sop to the big companies, wireless was exempted. But this January, a federal appeal court threw out Genachowski’s rules on entirely predictable grounds. It ruled that as an information service, internet companies were not subject to net neutrality rules. End of story.

So what could Wheeler, Genachowski’s successor, do? He could appeal the ruling, which he decided not to do. He could attempt, as Genachowski did earlier, to undo the damage that Powell, who is now the chief lobbyist for the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, did, or he could take another crack at writing regulations that might somehow get through the courts. Instead of risking a huge political battle that would come from trying to redefine internet providers, Wheeler outlined a new set of proposals for net neutrality.

Wheeler’s proposals seem to be even weaker than Genachowski’s. As senior FCC officials explained to the National Journal, the new proposal would allow a “two-sided market.” A company like Comcast could vary its charges to customers and also to content providers. Another official explained that there would be “flexibility” in applying non-discrimination rules. But leaving that aside, the proposal would still fail to get through the courts. The problem with Genachowski’s rules wasn’t that they were too strong, but that they were, strong or weak, rules against discrimination.

Here’s what the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. said in January about Genachowski’s rules:

Even though the Commission has general authority to regulate in this arena, it may not impose requirements that contravene express statutory mandates. Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such.

In other words, the commission has already exempted internet providers from Title II. There is nothing in Wheeler’s proposal that would prevent the Court of Appeals from coming to exactly the same conclusion. Wheeler’s proposal is wheel-spinning. It’s a waste of the people’s time.

In his proposal, Wheeler hints that he and the FCC might consider changing the definition of broadband providers. The statement is convoluted. He says that the FCC must “keep Title II authority on the table,” and continues:

As the Court of Appeals noted, as long as Title II — with the ability to reclassify Internet access service as a telecommunications service — remains a part of the Communications Act, the Commission has the ability to utilize it if warranted. Accordingly, the Commission’s docket on Title II authority remains open.

But it’s not enough—especially well into the Obama's second term—for the FCC’s docket to remain open. If Wheeler and the Obama administration really want to do something about net neutrality, they will have to move this proposal onto the docket and into law. That will bring the lobbies down upon them. Republicans will threaten to cut off funding for the FCC. But it can be done, and there is no other way to ensure net neutrality. My suspicion, though, after reading Wheeler’s proposals, is that he and Obama are not up to it.

I think we can all agree that when conservatives, libertarians and progressives think that an idea stinks, the idea must REALLY stink.

Net neutrality, as it exists needs to be left alone.
 
Obama needs to keep his hands off of it.

[aligncare]

Well, I'm convinced. You won't hear me talking up net neutrality any more.  Actually, I was just curious what the heck the term 'net neutrality' meant.

[Dexter]

Net neutrality, as it exists needs to be left alone.

That is exactly what most people want. The ISPs are fighting to change it. I want to reiterate what Massad said earlier and mention that net neutrality already exists.

[truth_seeker]

"Oh, you wanted tires with that car?"

Maybe that's why I keep getting the rotating circle on Netflix; I'm not paying for a faster download speed.

That could be. But not long ago, everybody on Netflix was getting the load delay, because ISPs were slowing down Netflix broadcast streams, negotiating for them to pay more.

[truth_seeker]

Anything and I do mean anything the government regulates costs us consumers money always always and we do not get better service. Why don't people see this the government has made a real mess of this country and we allow it by thinking they should regulate and that in the end it will get us fairness. Anyone who thinks that must be sleep walking you just have to look around to see what government regulations have done to this once great country. I don't trust them at all for any type of regulating we need freedom not fairness of the governmental type

Does that include water, sewers, roads, railroads, river ways, air space, military, ports, etc.?

Or are there certain functions, the world over, which inherently "government" needs to do? It seems so.

[mystery-ak]

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/223735-comcast-we-agree-with-obama

Comcast exec: We agree with Obama on net neutrality principles

By Julian Hattem - 11/11/14 04:46 PM EST
Comcast agrees with President’s Obama’s principles for protecting the Internet, a top executive maintained on Tuesday.

It just disagrees on how to get there.

Executive Vice President David Cohen said his company is “on the record as agreeing with every point,” in a blog post on Tuesday, one day after Obama called for the Federal Communications Commission to treat the Internet like a utility.
Internet service companies like Comcast or Verizon should not be able to block or slow users’ access to particular websites, Cohen said, nor should companies be able to pay for quicker service on “fast lanes.”

“We applaud the president for laying out these principles and framing the broad areas of agreement that we have with him,” Cohen wrote.

“There is one important technical legal difference of opinion between the President and Comcast: we do not support reclassification of broadband as a telecommunications service under Title II,” he added.

Reclassifying broadband Internet as a “telecommunications” service instead of an “information” service under the 1996 Telecommunications Act would give the FCC the ability to impose regulations under the more expansive Title II of the law.

Reclassification has been a point of contention for telecommunications companies and Republicans, who fear it would amount to aggressive regulation that would limit the economic growth of the Internet.

Taking that step, as President Obama called for on Monday, “would harm future innovation and investment in broadband and is not necessary to put in place strong and enforceable Open Internet protections,” Cohen said on Tuesday.

“People can be for net neutrality and against Title II — that simply represents agreement on the why, but not the how,” he added.

Instead of treating broadband like a utility, Comcast has urged the FCC to write new rules for the Internet under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act. Critics of that approach say it would allow companies to cut deals to give some websites faster access to users, which would amount to fast lanes on the Internet.

No matter which path the FCC chooses, Comcast is bound to the agency’s previous net neutrality rules for the next four years. Though those regulations were tossed out by an appeals court earlier this year, Comcast is required to stick to them until 2018 as a condition of its 2013 merger with NBC Universal.

[aligncare]

Oy vey 

[Carling]

The issue is not as simple as 'if Obama is for it, I'm against it.'

The congressional Dems are now supporting it, too.  I see that as a red flag.  Also, as pointed out previously, the "net neutrality" moniker also makes me skeptical. 

[GourmetDan]

The fact that this is being considered means that we, as a people, learned absolutely nothing from airline, trucking and telephone de-regulation.

Few choices, high cost, poor service while regulated; many choices, lower cost and better service after de-regulation.

[truth_seeker]

There is nothing special about the higher internet speeds. It's not like the ISPs pay more money for the better internet lanes to give to the highest paying customers. They could and should be providing that service to everybody that pays for internet from them. Trying to take control of the internet and set up a tiered system that gives precedence to people who pay them more money is nothing but an unnecessary money/control grab. It wouldn't even be that bad if it was possible for people to be competitive with them, but they have such a monopoly that they have managed to keep competition like Google fiber out of entire regions. These guys are a perfect example of why monopolies are terrible.

Ah yes, let them all drive Trabants. They don't "need" more car than that.

[DCPatriot]

The congressional Dems are now supporting it, too.  I see that as a red flag.  Also, as pointed out previously, the "net neutrality" moniker also makes me skeptical.

On top of that...there is evidence we'll call Exhibit A....Mr. 'Hans' Gruber, who on more than one occasion back in October, 2013, bragged about how they intentionally...successfully mislead and lied to the American public...who are "too stupid" to understand they were being hosed.

Fast forward to today...and we have the same Obama Administration...trying to sell us on their version of Net Neutrality.

No thanks....