Mixed Reactions To FCC Net Neutrality Ideas

FCC chairman Julius Genachowski has outlined his latest net neutrality proposals, and will put them to a vote on December 21, though the industry remains wary even of his fairly moderate approach.

Focal Points:

• The formal proposals have yet to be published, and the mobile players are still arguing that neutrality regulations are unnecessary, and possibly unworkable, for wireless services. However, Steve Largent, head of the mobile body CTIA, said he was "pleased that the proposed rules have moved away from broad Title II regulation and toward a more tailored approach that recognizes the unique nature of wireless services”.
• Verizon policy chief Tom Tauke said the firm did not oppose open internet concepts, only the extent to which the FCC should regulate the net, while Sprint – which has been the most pro-FCC of the big carriers all along – praised Genachowski for clearly recognizing the differences between fixed and wireless broadband in regulations.
• The broad outline of the proposals seems to enshrine those differences, but stop short of exempting cellcos from neutrality rules. They are certainly too weak to please neutrality supporters, while many Republicans in Congress want the FCC to lose much of its power to create the rules, and leave that to the lawmakers.
• Wireless carriers would be prohibited from blocking services like Google Voice and Skype, which compete with their own voice and video offerings. But they would not face the same restrictions as wireline carriers on blocking web traffic and other applications, opening the way for usage-based pricing and for various priorities or levels of QoS.
• There would be transparency requirements for network management policies and Genachowski said the FCC would closely monitor mobile broadband and "be prepared to step in to further address anti-competitive or anti-consumer conduct as appropriate”.
• Despite its careful middle path, the plan is attracting criticism on all sides. Verizon Wireless and Google briefly found common cause earlier this year as they tried to get the industry to set the agenda, rather than the regulator. But this week they have been taking different stands. Verizon Wireless’ CEO Daniel Mead met Genachowski on Friday to repeat the call of most operators, that the broadband market does not need new rules and wireless is a special case because of the limitations of spectrum capacity. Mead wants any neutrality rules to follow the framework pro- posed by Representative Henry Waxman last November, which would include a “sunset provision‟ to end the regulations in a couple of years.
• But the Open Internet Coalition, and public interest group Public Knowledge, both representing Google and Skype, also met FCC officials, and argued that any rules must apply equally to wireless and wireline broadband. They also insisted that there should be no priority delivery of content. The FCC's proposal does have some supporters – notably trades unions and some venture capitalists, plus cautious approval from AT&T and Comcast.
• The pro-Google lobbyists urged FCC Commissioner Michael Copps – probably the most important person for Genachowski to win over -     to apply a clear definition of a broadband access provider, and apply this to wireless providers and other companies who want to escape regulation. The proposals apparently omit such a definition.
• Copps himself said last week that the FCC should reclassify broadband as a telecoms service to gain greater legal authority to enact neutrality regulations – a different view from Genachowksi’s plan, which allows for regulations without reclassification. Copps has to be wooed as Genachowski already has at least two of the five-person FCC – Republicans Robert McDowell and Meredith Attwell Baker – on his side, and probably the final Commissioner, Mignon Clyburn.

"These rules must be put on the most solid possible legal foundation and be quickly and effectively enforceable," Copps said during a speech at Columbia University's School of Journalism. "If this requires reclassifying advanced telecommunications as Title II telecommunications - and I continue to believe this is the best way to go - we should just do it and get it over with."