Share your thoughts on FCC’s “Third Way” Broadband Framework
Last week FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski presented “The Third Way: A Narrowly Tailored Broadband Framework,” an approach to reclassify broadband services in order to preserve the consensus on the FCC’s Net Neutrality role. In the wake of the Comcast ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, this third way approach would return a consensus by distinguishing broadband transmissions from broadband “computing functionality” and by tailoring Title II’s requirements so they better fit “the internet age”. You can read FCC General Counsel Austin Schlick’s detailed statement here.
The Knight Commission has called for policymakers to “maintain the national commitment to open networks as a core objective of Internet policy” and sees the “openness of networks as essential to meeting community information needs” (Recommendation 9).
As Chairman Genachowski stated:
I will ask my Commission colleagues to join me in soon launching a public process seeking comment on this narrow and tailored approach. The proceeding will seek comment regarding the Title I and Title II options discussed above, will seek input on important questions such as whether wired and wireless broadband access should be treated differently in this context, and will invite new ideas. As we move forward, my focus will be on the best method for restoring the shared understanding of FCC authority that existed before the Comcast decision and for putting in place a solid legal foundation for achieving the policy goals that benefit consumers and our economy in the most effective and least intrusive way.
Clearly, this is the start of a long public discourse. Please share your thoughts here. Does the FCC’s approach to reclassifying broadband services solve the dilemma posed by the Comcast ruling? Will this third way approach work?
Bob Quinn’s recent article at http://attpublicpolicy.com/government-policy/pickett%E2%80%99s-charge-redux/ says it all. The Commission seems to be pursuing a rash, ineffective dead end strategy out of sheer outrage that a court — correctly — found that its power over the Internet had limits.
I myself run a small, independent ISP whose business prospects (in particular, my ability to find investors and hence my ability to build out broadband to unserved areas) have already been badly hurt by the FCC’s actions. Unfortunately, the voices of those of us with “boots on the ground” who are actually doing the hard work of deploying broadband are seldom heard inside the Beltway. At the countless policy “summits,” “forums,” and “events,” one only sees the same dozen or so corporate lobbyists — some of whom claim to be working for “public interest” groups but in fact have ties to an interested party. None of them has ever hooked up a single broadband connection for a customer or actually run a small business or a broadband provider.
I believe that the FCC should take a step back and consider whether its apparent goal — seizing the power to impose “network neutrality” regulations — is worth pursuing. Especially since it would actually be counter to the goals in the Commission’s own National Broadband Plan. I think that the country would be far better served if the FCC opted instead to promote competition and transparency rather than trying to impose onerous, expensive, and unnecessary regulations upon ISPs. For a more detailed discussion, see my comments to the FCC at http://www.brettglass.com/nprmreplycomments./pdf