You are here

Regulation

FCC Title II Internet Regulation: “Believe it or not!”

With due credit toRipley's Believe it or Not!, so much odd and bizarre is happening in Washington in the "name" of “Title II utility regulation of the Internet ” that the topic calls for its own collection of: Believe it or Not!®oddities.

In seeking comment for what is the best FCC legal authority to enforce net neutrality, Section 706, Title II, etc., the FCC has completely ignored the most obvious solution – asking Congress -- the source of all its existing authority -- for the new authority the FCC believes it needs!

Top Ten Deficiencies in FCC’s Title II Record

Will this FCC legal team learn from the legal mistakes of their predecessors and ensure the FCC has a thorough and a sufficient legal record to justify their legal theories, given that the FCC already has failed twice in crafting legal net neutrality regulations in Comcast v. FCC in 2010 and again in Verizon v. FCC in 2014?

Kindly, the U.S. Court of Appeals has provided the FCC a roadmap to follow to legally justify their net neutrality rules under Section 706.

It is telling that the court provided no similar legal “roadmap” for Title II reclassification. That’s because Title II reclassification would require successfully backtracking decades of opposing FCC and court precedents and remixing FCC authorities in new and imaginative ways to traverse uncharted legal territory.

Top Ten Adjectives to Describe FCC Title II Net Neutrality Regulation

 

The top ten most descriptive adjectives for the President’s claim that Title II utility regulation authority is needed to implement net neutrality are:

 

  1. UNTRUE

  2. UNWARRANTED

  3. UNNECESSARY

  4. UNFAIR  

  5. UNPOPULAR

NetCompetition on President's Call for FCC Title II Internet Regulation

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                           

November 10, 2014

Contact:  Scott Cleland 703-217-2407

 

The President’s Call for Regulating the Internet as a Title II Utility Could Break the Global Internet

Autocratic Nations Want the UN’s International Telecommunications Union to Control the Internet

Reclassifying the Internet as “Telecommunications” Isn’t Domestic Policy, but Trade/Foreign Policy    

 

WASHINGTON D.C. – The following may be attributed to Scott Cleland, Chairman of NetCompetition:

The Federal Communications Congress? – My Daily Caller Op-ed

 

Please don’t miss my Daily Caller op-ed here: “The Federal Communications Congress?”

It explains how the FCC would be reversing longstanding, successful, bipartisan U.S. trade and foreign policy, if it unilaterally reversed the legal status of Internet traffic from an un-tariffed information service to a price (and tariff) regulated “telecommunications” service.  

This is Part 71 of my FCC Open Internet Order Series.

***                 

FCC Open Internet Order Series

Part 1: The Many Vulnerabilities of an Open Internet [9-24-09]

FCC Should Ask Congress for Authority to Address Internet Fast Lane Issue

 

If the FCC believes it needs additional legal authority to ensure no Internet “fast lanes” or “paid prioritization,” it should ask Congress for the authority to do it.

That’s what agency “creatures of Congress” do when their original legal authorities have obsolesced and need modernization to remain functional. It’s Congress’ constitutional role to set American communications/Internet policy; it’s the FCC’s role to implement and adjudicate it. That’s basically why the U.S. D.C. Court of Appeals overturned the FCC in 2010 in Comcast v. FCCand again in 2014 in Verizon v. FCC.

Net Neutrality Has Become an Industrial Policy – My Daily Caller Op-ed

 

Please don’t miss my Daily Caller op-ed here: “Net Neutrality Has Become an Industrial Policy.”

It explains how net neutrality is being exposed to be less about protecting consumers and more about “Trojan horse” political messaging to protect and subsidize Silicon Valley economic interests.

This is Part 70 of my FCC Open Internet Order Series.

***

FCC Open Internet Order Series

Part 1: The Many Vulnerabilities of an Open Internet [9-24-09]

Why Waxman’s FCC Internet Utility Regulation Plan Would Be Unlawful

 

Rep. Henry Waxman, Ranking Member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, wrote the FCC to propose that the FCC, in its pending Open Internet order remand, “reclassif[y] broadband providers as telecommunications services and then using the modern [Title I] authority of section 706 to set bright-line rules to prevent blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization.”

Evaluating the Title II Rainbow of Proposals for the FCC to Go Nuclear

 

While proposing to follow the D.C. Circuit Court’s roadmap in Verizon v. FCC to create a legal FCC regulatory framework for the Internet Age under the FCC’s 706 authorities, the FCC also invited proposals to potentially subject broadband to Title II common carrier utility regulation.

The FCC’s invitation has prompted a “rainbow of policy and legal proposals” that would explore “new ideas for protecting and promoting the open Internet” by imposing Title II telecommunications regulation on America’s Internet infrastructure.

FTC Implicitly Urges FCC to Not Reclassify Broadband as a Utility

 

The FTC implicitly laid down an important jurisdictional, political, and public marker against FCC reclassification of broadband as a utility, in its recent FCC filing in the FCC’s Section 706 inquiry proceeding.

Respectfully outside of the Open Internet proceeding considering whether to reclassify broadband information services as a Title II common carrier (utility) telecommunication service, the FTC officially and deftly introduced key legal facts into the overall FCC record – that deftly have the practical and legal effect of opposing FCC reclassification of broadband Internet access service as a Title II common carrier – on the record.

Pages

Q&A One Pager Debunking Net Neutrality Myths