The Interwebs are aflame today as news comes down from the Federal Communications Commission and its chairman Julius Genachowski that he and the FCC will pursue a greater level of Internet regulation when the Commission meets on December 21st. This comes just over a year after the Commission unveiled plans to move towards a radical reclassification of the Internet from an "information service" to a "telecommunications service," a move that would have tremendously increased the regulatory power of the Commission over how the Internet is run.
While today's speech by Genachowski avoids many of the pitfalls of the Net Neutrality principles originally laid out last year, there are still huge questions remaining as the details are sketchy at best.
To sum up, Genachowski proposed a regulatory framework that:
- ensures that the Internet remains a powerful platform for innovation and job creation,
- empowers consumers and entrepreneurs,
- protects free expression,
- increases certainty in the marketplace, and;
- spurs investment both at the edge and in the core of our broadband networks.
While these five points lay out the general framework, we in the public are still waiting for the specific regulations.
It is unfortunate that Chairman Genachowski feels that speed is of the essence. In matters as complex as regulating national wired and wireless broadband networks speed will do more damage than patience. There is no immediate threat to human health, safety, the environment or the Internet. None. And the "threats" being cited are either not Net Neutrality issues, or nothing more than theoretical scenarios.
And at least once during his speech did the Chairman use the analogy of life without the Internet as unimaginable as "life without running water or electricity." Running water and electricity are both highly regulated utilities -- which is where advocates for full Net Neutrality want to take the Internet. The proposal by Genachowski, at least the parts he has released, does not turn the Internet into the local water or power company, but it does move us toward that unfortunate eventuality at least a little. Just look at his desire to turn the FCC into an entity that "would closely monitor the development of the mobile broadband market and be prepared to step in to further address anti-competitive or anti-consumer conduct as appropriate."
At least a few on The Hill are already questioning the legal authority of the FCC to become the United States' customer service advocate under Title I of the Communications Act.
To sum up, this proposal could have been much more burdensome and a greater threat to curtailing innovation while increasing the regulatory compliance burden. But it could have been better as well -- namely the FCC could have refrained from implementing an ex ante regulatory scheme in favor of one that sets up a broad framework and then punishes wrongdoing on a case-by-case basis. That would have been more effective towards spurring true innovation and meeting goals all five goals laid out by the Chairman.