CYBERSPACE—In releasing early today a general outline of his proposal "that the FCC use its Title II authority to implement and enforce open internet protections," followed immediately by a Fact Sheet providing greater detail on the finer points of the proposal, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has delivered what The Verge calls "a striking victory for net neutrality advocates who have been fighting for years to solidify internet protections using Title II authority."
Wheeler, who himself has seemed to struggle over how much oversight the government should place on the internet's gate-keepers, has in the end—and after receiving a record-breaking 3.7 million plus public comments during a four-month open comment period—come down on the side of strong government regulation that nonetheless includes the flexibility to refrain "from enforcing provisions of Title II that are not relevant to modern broadband service."
As reported by PCWorld, "The hard-line stance comes after Wheeler floated another net neutrality proposal in 2014 that would allow Internet service providers to engage in 'commercially reasonable' traffic management, which led to fears of Internet fast lanes. The addition of mobile broadband to Wheeler’s new proposal is another surprise, since the net neutrality mandate that passed in 2010 (and was subsequently shot down in court) specifically excluded mobile networks." That said, the FCC's previous chairman, Julius Genachowski, was himself an outspoken advocate for wired and wireless net neutrality, so in a sense the FCC has come full-circle on that issue.
Despite what will certainly be seen as an historic move by the FCC chairman, the proposal is by no means a done deal. Mark Sullivan, in an article published on venturebeat.com yesterday, reported, "Our source says that after the Title II reclassification becomes official, AT&T and Verizon will file lawsuits almost immediately." Wall Street is also generally opposed to net neutrality, which it sees as an obstacle to innovation and a potential drag on the market.
As well, it iremains to be seen whether the Republican-controlled Congress is in a mood to allow such a sweeping overhaul that many believe reeks of government overreach to proceed unopposed. It was only in July that Rep. Darryl Issa, the then-chairman of the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform, argued during a hearing of a House Judiciary subcommittee that, as Bloomberg described his stance, "Allowing the government to consider anything but pure economic questions was the same thing as censorship. Pointing out that the FCC doesn’t allow profanity on network television, [Issa] said that the goal of any Internet regulation would be the same." Censorship would be an inevitable by-product of net neutrality, he argued, leading the nation "back to the Leave It to Beaver times."
Bloomberg also characterized Issa's position in its headline as, "Net Neutrality Will End Porn."
Hustler publisher Larry Flynt expressed similar concerns in September, remarking to US News & World Report that while he supports net neutrality in concept, he is also extremely wary of the FCC. As AVN reported at the time, "Flynt told [reporter Tom] Risen he agrees that 'the FCC would "absolutely" try to regulate internet content if it gained more control of networks through net neutrality, adding he’s always been "suspicious" of the commission.'"
Despite the world-class battle that will certainly be waged in courtrooms, in Congress, across social media and in the traditional media from now until the FCC votes on the proposal on Feb. 26, it looks as though Wheeler has attempted to fashion workable rules designed to deflect all but the most extreme arguments against what he calls a "bright line" of regulation that "will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services," in order to codify "the rights of internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone’s permission."
He further explains, "All of this can be accomplished while encouraging investment in broadband networks. To preserve incentives for broadband operators to invest in their networks, my proposal will modernize Title II, tailoring it for the 21st century, in order to provide returns necessary to construct competitive networks. For example, there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling. Over the last 21 years, the wireless industry has invested almost $300 billion under similar rules, proving that modernized Title II regulation can encourage investment and competition."
To many observers, the proposal sounds like the correct path forward, but others remain skeptical that government can ever find the right balance, or doubtful that the process can move forward swiftly enough before, as VentureBeat put it, we're "looking at the beginning of a new administration (and possibly a new FCC chief) before this major shift in Internet regulation becomes a reality."
