Google Fears FCC’s New Internet Powers

The Web giant’s lobbyists are quietly fretting about a recent court ruling.

A sign is posted on the exterior of Google headquarters on January 30, 2014 in Mountain View, California.  
National Journal
Add to Briefcase
Brendan Sasso
Feb. 26, 2014, midnight

A re­cent court de­cision that en­dorsed a broad view of the Fed­er­al Com­mu­nic­a­tions Com­mis­sion’s au­thor­ity over the In­ter­net has Google and oth­er Web com­pan­ies nervous.

In closed-door meet­ings with reg­u­lat­ors and Cap­it­ol Hill staff, Google’s law­yers have said they’re wor­ried how the FCC may use its new­found powers, ac­cord­ing to mul­tiple people fa­mil­i­ar with the meet­ings.

The ex­tent of the FCC’s au­thor­ity over Google and oth­er Web ser­vices re­mains un­clear, and the cur­rent FCC has giv­en no in­dic­a­tion that it is in­ter­ested in push­ing ag­gress­ive new reg­u­la­tions for Web com­pan­ies. But the pos­sib­il­ity that the com­mis­sion could be­gin telling Google how to or­gan­ize its search res­ults or handle its users’ data is enough to spook the com­pany’s army of Wash­ing­ton lob­by­ists.

The FCC and Google de­clined to com­ment.

Last month, the D.C. Cir­cuit Court of Ap­peals struck down the FCC’s net-neut­ral­ity rules, which barred In­ter­net ser­vice pro­viders from dis­crim­in­at­ing against or block­ing any web­sites. But the de­cision was based on the nar­row ques­tion of wheth­er the rules too closely re­sembled what are known as “com­mon car­riage” reg­u­la­tions.

On the broad­er is­sue of the FCC’s power to reg­u­late the In­ter­net, the court gave the com­mis­sion a huge win.

FCC Chair­man Tom Wheel­er is now try­ing to use that broad au­thor­ity to re­work the net-neut­ral­ity rules. But the de­cision also opened the door to a host of oth­er pos­sible In­ter­net reg­u­la­tions.

The FCC jus­ti­fied its net neut­ral­ity rules by point­ing to Sec­tion 706 of the Tele­com­mu­nic­a­tions Act, which says the agency has the power to pro­mote the de­ploy­ment of broad­band In­ter­net net­works.

The court largely de­ferred to the FCC, say­ing Con­gress gran­ted the agency the power to en­act reg­u­la­tions that pro­mote the “vir­tu­ous cycle” of In­ter­net in­nov­a­tion and net­work con­struc­tion.

The Re­pub­lic­an-con­trolled House likely didn’t think it was giv­ing the FCC sweep­ing power over the In­ter­net when it en­acted the law in 1996, but the pro­vi­sion could be the hook for a slew of new reg­u­la­tions.

Ber­in Szoka, pres­id­ent of the liber­tari­an group Tech­Free­dom, warned that the FCC may use its new power to en­force pro­vi­sions from the con­tro­ver­sial Stop On­line Pir­acy Act, bet­ter known as SOPA, which Con­gress aban­doned after a massive Web re­volt in 2012.

The FCC could, the­or­et­ic­ally, or­der In­ter­net ser­vice pro­viders and search en­gines to block web­sites of­fer­ing il­leg­al cop­ies of mu­sic and movies. The leg­al ar­gu­ment would be that on­line pir­acy dis­cour­ages en­ter­tain­ment com­pan­ies from pro­du­cing con­tent. There­fore, stamp­ing out pir­acy would en­cour­age the pro­duc­tion of more con­tent, lead­ing to more In­ter­net use, and ul­ti­mately the de­ploy­ment of more broad­band net­works.

“It could really be any­thing with­in the scope of com­mu­nic­a­tion,” Szoka said. Even if the agency doesn’t take form­al ac­tions, it could use the threat of its power un­der Sec­tion 706 to pres­sure com­pan­ies to com­ply, Szoka warned.

Har­old Feld, the seni­or vice pres­id­ent of Pub­lic Know­ledge, usu­ally ar­gues for ag­gress­ive FCC ac­tion to pro­tect con­sumers. But even he said the im­plic­a­tions of the court’s de­cision are “very troub­ling.”

Feld sug­ges­ted the FCC could im­pose pri­vacy pro­tec­tion reg­u­la­tions on Google and oth­er com­pan­ies un­der the the­ory that people would be more likely to use the In­ter­net if they felt their per­son­al in­form­a­tion was safe.

The or­der of Google’s search res­ults could also be a tar­get for reg­u­la­tion. Com­pet­it­ors like Mi­crosoft and Yelp have long ac­cused Google of ma­nip­u­lat­ing its search res­ults to fa­vor its own ser­vices.

App stores, smart-home devices, in­stant mes­saging, and cy­ber­se­cur­ity are just a few oth­er pos­sible areas for FCC reg­u­la­tion.

Any new In­ter­net rules un­der Sec­tion 706 would face im­me­di­ate court chal­lenges, and it’s un­clear how far the courts would let the FCC go. Oth­er pro­vi­sions of the Com­mu­nic­a­tions Act and con­sti­tu­tion­al pro­tec­tions such as the First Amend­ment put some lim­its on the FCC’s power over In­ter­net com­pan­ies. It’s un­likely that the D.C. Cir­cuit rul­ing will be the fi­nal word on the com­mis­sion’s In­ter­net au­thor­ity.

Google is not the only Web com­pany that’s un­easy with the im­plic­a­tions of the court’s rul­ing. Face­book, Ya­hoo, Amazon, and scores of oth­er com­pan­ies could be af­fected by new In­ter­net reg­u­la­tions.

But so far, Google has been the most vo­cal be­hind the scenes in rais­ing alarm about the scope of the FCC’s po­ten­tial new powers, ac­cord­ing to people fa­mil­i­ar with the dis­cus­sions. And the com­pany is ad­vised by an ex­pert on the com­mis­sion’s In­ter­net au­thor­ity: Aus­tin Schlick was the FCC’s gen­er­al coun­sel when it en­acted the net-neut­ral­ity rules, and he is now a Google law­yer.

Robert Mc­Dow­ell, a former Re­pub­lic­an FCC com­mis­sion­er, said Google should have thought through the con­sequences of sup­port­ing net-neut­ral­ity rules.

“Those who sub­scribe to the school of thought that says ‘please reg­u­late my rival but not me’ al­most al­ways live to re­gret it,” Mc­Dow­ell said. “Once you in­vite the gov­ern­ment in­to your space, it doesn’t want to leave any­one in that space alone.”

Al­though Pub­lic Know­ledge’s Feld ex­pressed con­cern about the FCC’s po­ten­tially broad power un­der Sec­tion 706, he ar­gued that it’s im­port­ant that the com­mis­sion have some au­thor­ity to reg­u­late In­ter­net ac­cess. So far, the FCC has de­clined to ap­ply the reg­u­lat­ory scheme it uses for tele­phone com­pan­ies to broad­band In­ter­net pro­viders.

“If 706 is the only tool we’ve got, then we’re go­ing to use it,” Feld said.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.