FCC's Genachowski: Market Analysis Was Integral To New Net Neutrality Rules

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski says the FCC conducted economic analysis on net neutrality rules -- citing a number of graphs in the order -- and said he is keeping the Title II docket open because it is "an open, public process" launched less than a year ago "to consider the adequacy of the current legal framework within which the Commission promotes investment and innovation in, and protects consumes of, broadband Internet service," and does so "without proposing any particular agency action."

In a letter to House Commerce Committee leadership, Chairman Genachowski a market analysis was "an integral part of the Commission's effort to develop an open Internet policy..." The result, he maintained, had been a "light-touch" approach. He said the order also weighed the costs and benefits of the rules, and included input from Google. Facebook, Amazon, eBay and others that "the Internet's openness is a critical component of its contribution to economic growth." Those opposed to codifying the rules have also argued they are for openness, but say marketplace forces are a sufficient governor. Chairman Genachowski also argued that one of the keys to the order was ensuring small businesses can have open access to the 'net to create jobs and innovate and compete.

Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI), Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR), and Vice Chairman Lee Terry (R-NE) replied:

"We share Chairman Genachowski’s goal to ensure the Internet remains open, which is exactly why we oppose the FCC’s decision to impose unprecedented government regulations on a currently thriving and open Internet. Over the last several months, the FCC has failed to provide a compelling justification for its power-grab. The analysis the FCC points to in its order does little more than summarize the comments of parties and provide conclusory statements. The committee will continue to scour the referenced text for a glimmer of legitimate analysis, but frankly we expect more from an ‘expert’ agency. The truth is imposing these rules will cause more harm than good by stifling innovation, investments and jobs."