The FCC’s Nuclear Option on Net Neutrality

Venture capitalist Tom Wheeler, US President Barack Obama's nominee to head the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), attends the announcement in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC, on May 1, 2013.
National Journal
Brendan Sasso
Jan. 15, 2014, midnight

Tom Wheel­er, the chair­man of the Fed­er­al Com­mu­nic­a­tions Com­mis­sion, has a de­cision to make.

A fed­er­al ap­peals court on Tues­day struck down the FCC’s net neut­ral­ity rules, eras­ing the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion’s ef­fort to pro­tect the free­dom and open­ness of the In­ter­net.

The court also, however, left Wheel­er a path to pos­sibly save the rules. The judges made it clear that the FCC’s leg­al prob­lems stem from its de­cision to clas­si­fy broad­band In­ter­net as an “in­form­a­tion ser­vice,” and if Wheel­er chooses to re­clas­si­fy broad­band as a “tele­com­mu­nic­a­tions ser­vice,” the rules would im­me­di­ately be on much firmer leg­al ground.

Re­clas­si­fy­ing broad­band could save the FCC’s net neut­ral­ity rules, but it would come at a cost: the move would prompt a knock-down, drag-out fight with con­gres­sion­al Re­pub­lic­ans, who fear the FCC would be grant­ing it­self broad power to over­see the In­ter­net.

Without the rules, In­ter­net pro­viders could force web­sites like Google, Face­book or Net­flix to pay spe­cial fees in or­der to reach users.

Such a fight would put the rest of Wheel­er’s FCC agenda at risk, but the chair­man may well de­cide that’s a risk he’s will­ing to take.

The FCC ad­op­ted its net neut­ral­ity rules in late 2010 un­der Wheel­er’s pre­de­cessor, Ju­li­us Gen­achow­ski. They bar In­ter­net ser­vice pro­viders from block­ing web­sites or from dis­crim­in­at­ing against any In­ter­net traffic, ex­cept for reas­on­able net­work man­age­ment.

Without the rules, In­ter­net pro­viders could force web­sites like Google, Face­book or Net­flix to pay spe­cial fees in or­der to reach users. Sup­port­ers of net neut­ral­ity ar­gue the In­ter­net should re­main an open plat­form where all web­sites and ser­vices are treated equally.

But crit­ics ar­gue the rules un­ne­ces­sar­ily re­strict the busi­ness choices of In­ter­net pro­viders. They say ex­ist­ing com­pet­i­tion laws already ban ab­uses of mar­ket power and that In­ter­net pro­viders shouldn’t be barred from ex­per­i­ment­ing with new pri­cing mod­els.

Re­pub­lic­ans warn that re­clas­si­fy­ing broad­band as a tele­com­mu­nic­a­tions ser­vice could lead to not only the re­in­state­ment of net neut­ral­ity, but a host of oth­er bur­den­some reg­u­la­tions that could strangle the growth of the In­ter­net. While the FCC has only lim­ited au­thor­ity to reg­u­late in­form­a­tion ser­vices, it has sweep­ing power to man­age the busi­ness de­cisions of tele­com­mu­nic­a­tions ser­vices.

“The court today de­livered a vic­tory for jobs and in­nov­a­tion. This rul­ing stands up for con­sumers and pro­viders alike by keep­ing the gov­ern­ment’s hands off the In­ter­net,” Rep. Fred Up­ton, R-Mich., the chair­man of the House En­ergy and Com­merce Com­mit­tee, and Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., the chair­man of the Com­mu­nic­a­tions and Tech­no­logy Sub­com­mit­tee, said in a joint state­ment.

Robert Mc­Dow­ell, a former Re­pub­lic­an FCC com­mis­sion­er who voted against the rules, warned in an in­ter­view that re­clas­si­fic­a­tion could “trig­ger an ava­lanche of eco­nom­ic reg­u­la­tion on the In­ter­net.”

He ar­gued that the move would stifle eco­nom­ic growth, point­ing to the fact that stock prices for In­ter­net pro­viders like Com­cast and Ve­r­i­zon slipped when the FCC first floated the pos­sib­il­ity of clas­si­fy­ing broad­band as a tele­com­mu­nic­a­tions ser­vice in 2010.

En­act­ing net neut­ral­ity in the first place sucked much of the en­ergy from Gen­achow­ski’s chair­man­ship. With oth­er press­ing is­sues be­fore the com­mis­sion like an auc­tion of air­wave li­censes, a net­work tech­no­logy trans­ition and the pres­id­ent’s pro­pos­al to im­prove In­ter­net ac­cess in schools, Wheel­er may be hes­it­ant to re-fight that battle.

“It would start a big war with­in Wash­ing­ton and would prob­ably not be a con­struct­ive use of the com­mis­sion’s time,” Mc­Dow­ell said.

But some Demo­crats and pub­lic in­terest ad­voc­ates ar­gue that the rules are so im­port­ant that they are worth en­dur­ing some tem­por­ary polit­ic­al head­aches to save. As long as Re­pub­lic­ans only con­trol one house of Con­gress, they can kick and scream, but they can’t block any FCC ac­tion.

“The FCC needs to re­spond im­me­di­ately in a way that keeps the In­ter­net open to all of us, not just big cor­por­ate in­terests,” Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., said in a state­ment.

“At its core, the FCC’s fun­da­ment­al re­spons­ib­il­ity is the reg­u­la­tion of com­mu­nic­a­tions net­works for the pub­lic in­terest and con­sumers every­where,” Sen­ate Com­merce Com­mit­tee Chair­man Jay Rock­e­feller, D-W.Va., said. “I urge the FCC to con­sider all vi­able op­tions to ac­com­plish these ob­ject­ives, and to make sure that that both con­sumers and com­pet­i­tion are pro­tec­ted through a free and open In­ter­net.”

In­stead of re­clas­si­fic­a­tion, the FCC could also try ap­peal­ing the de­cision to the full D.C. Cir­cuit Court of Ap­peals or to the Su­preme Court. But with the three judge D.C. Cir­cuit pan­el rul­ing un­an­im­ously against the FCC, the odds of win­ning on ap­peal don’t look good.

Wheel­er could also try to re­work the rules un­der their cur­rent au­thor­ity and see if that is enough to sat­is­fy the court. But re­writ­ing the rules would al­most cer­tainly mean wa­ter­ing them down and would likely still face Re­pub­lic­an op­pos­i­tion.

“It’s go­ing to be a big fight no mat­ter what,” said Mi­chael Wein­berg, vice pres­id­ent of con­sumer ad­vocacy group Pub­lic Know­ledge, ar­guing that Wheel­er should con­sider re­clas­si­fic­a­tion. “There’s vir­tue to just hav­ing it and mov­ing on.”

For now, Wheel­er is leav­ing his op­tions open.

“I am com­mit­ted to main­tain­ing our net­works as en­gines for eco­nom­ic growth, test beds for in­nov­at­ive ser­vices and products, and chan­nels for all forms of speech pro­tec­ted by the First Amend­ment,” he said in a state­ment.

“We will con­sider all avail­able op­tions, in­clud­ing those for ap­peal, to en­sure that these net­works on which the In­ter­net de­pends con­tin­ue to provide a free and open plat­form for in­nov­a­tion and ex­pres­sion, and op­er­ate in the in­terest of all Amer­ic­ans.”

MOST READ
What We're Following See More »
FIRST WOMAN NOMINATED BY MAJOR PARTY
Hillary Clinton Accepts the Democratic Nomination for President
5 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"It is with humility, determination, and boundless confidence in America’s promise that I accept your nomination for president," said Hillary Clinton in becoming the first woman to accept a nomination for president from a major party. Clinton gave a wide-ranging address, both criticizing Donald Trump and speaking of what she has done in the past and hopes to do in the future. "He's taken the Republican party a long way, from morning in America to midnight in America," Clinton said of Trump. However, most of her speech focused instead on the work she has done and the work she hopes to do as president. "I will be a president of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. For the struggling, the striving, the successful," she said. "For those who vote for me and for those who don't. For all Americans together."

COUNTER-CHANTS AT THE READY
Protesters Make Good on Threat to Disrupt Speech
5 hours ago
THE LATEST

Supporters of Bernie Sanders promised to walk out, turn their backs, or disrupt Hillary Clinton's speech tonight, and they made good immediately, with an outburst almost as soon as Clinton began her speech. But her supporters, armed with a handy counter-chant cheat sheet distributed by the campaign, immediately began drowning them out with chants of "Hillary, Hillary!"

SUFFOLK POLL
New Survey Shows Clinton Up 9 in Pennsylvania
13 hours ago
THE LATEST

If a new poll is to be believed, Hillary Clinton has a big lead in the all-important swing state of Pennsylvania. A new Suffolk University survey shows her ahead of Donald Trump, 50%-41%. In a four-way race, she maintains her nine-point lead, 46%-37%. "Pennsylvania has voted Democratic in the past six presidential elections, going back to Bill Clinton’s first win in 1992. Yet it is a rust belt state that could be in play, as indicated by recent general-election polling showing a close race."

Source:
THREE NIGHTS RUNNING
Democrats Beat Republicans in Convention Ratings So Far
14 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Wednesday was the third night in a row that the Democratic convention enjoyed a ratings win over the Republican convention last week. Which might have prompted a fundraising email from Donald Trump exhorting supporters not to watch. "Unless you want to be lied to, belittled, and attacked for your beliefs, don't watch Hillary's DNC speech tonight," the email read. "Instead, help Donald Trump hold her accountable, call out her lies and fight back against her nasty attacks."

Source:
SHIFT FROM ROMNEY’S NUMBERS
Catholics, Highly Educated Moving Toward Dems
18 hours ago
THE LATEST

Catholics who attend mass at least weekly have increased their support of the Democratic nominee by 22 points, relative to 2012, when devout Catholics backed Mitt Romney. Meanwhile, a Morning Consult poll shows that those voters with advanced degrees prefer Hillary Clinton, 51%-34%. Which, we suppose, makes the ideal Clinton voter a Catholic with a PhD in divinity.

×