Net neutrality advocates demonstrate across the street from the Comcast Center in Philadelphia, on Sept. 15, 2014. Matt Rourke/AP
The Drudge Report headline said it all: “NEW RULES: FCC Chair Unveils ‘Net Neutrality.'” That’s a pretty apt description of how the world sees FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s announcement today that he wants to change the way the nation’s telecommunications regulator views the internet.
The problem is that it’s not entirely accurate. To be sure, the FCC made a remarkable announcement—one that many pundits viewed as impossible a year ago—but it’s also easy to get caught up in the rhetoric and miss what’s really going on here.
You see, the FCC didn’t unveil net neutrality today. It has backed the idea of net neutrality for about a decade. That’s why your internet service provider doesn’t already charge you extra for running Skype or a virtual private network, or even a router.
What’s changing here is the way the FCC is classifying broadband internet. And the reason this is happening is because the courts have told the FCC that it simply can’t enforce net neutrality unless it does this. A year ago, Chairman Wheeler thought he could keep the courts happy with some regulatory jujutsu, but net neutrality lobbyists, the President, and millions of people told him otherwise.
So now Wheeler wants to turn back the clock and classify broadband the same way that DSL was classified back in the 1990s—as a regulated transmission service. When people talk about Title II, they’re really talking about a return to the way that internet service providers were originally regulated, under the Title II section of the 1934 Communications Act.
It’s true that Title II lets the FCC set rules for your internet service provider with a much firmer hand. That’s why the AT&Ts, Comcasts and Verizons of the world hate it. But the real question here is whether the FCC is going to actually use any of those powers to change much of anything. Judging from the FCC’s comments today, things could really change for wireless broadband users, but the agency isn’t really proposing to use Title II to do anything new in the wired broadband world.
So when cable industry lobbying groups such as Broadband For America argue that Wheeler’s proposal “could have spillover effects into the broader Internet ecosystem and threaten Silicon Valley companies that rely heavily on the Internet,” take that with a grain of salt.
The markets certainly weren’t alarmed. Stocks for the big telecos went up today as market-watchers were relieved that the FCC said it wasn’t going to regulate what the cable and phone companies charge us for internet access.
Chairman Wheeler says that he wants to extend net neutrality to mobile broadband, an area that’s been given a net neutrality pass to date. That’s a big change, for sure, but one that’s largely in line with the nearly 4 million pro-net-neutrality comments that the FCC has already received on this issue.
But for wired broadband carriers, it looks pretty much like we’ll return to business as usual. As Chairman Wheeler wrote in a WIRED opinion piece today, he wants to “ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services.” Nothing new there. He also promises the providers “no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling.”
So as you read the avalanche of commentary on today’s position, keep this in mind: Title II is important because it finally gives the FCC the legal firepower to enforce net neutrality. “Title II, by itself, doesn’t accomplish much more than that,” says Corynne McSherry Intellectual Property Director with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. What’s really going to matter is wether the FCC uses that power.
“What matters are the rules themselves. That’s why it is crucial that the public stays engaged, so we can make sure the FCC does the right thing in the next few weeks, and then hold it accountable over time.”
“The telcos can play a long game,” she adds. “So we have to do the same.”
No comments:
Post a Comment