The House Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, chaired by Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR), discussed the implications of Federal Communications Commission action to regulate the Internet using utility-style regulations. A separate hearing on whether the White House inappropriately influenced the FCC’s plan was shelved after FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler refused to attend because he was busy overseeing last-minute negotiations on the FCC’s Order.
“Tomorrow, the FCC is expected to adopt an Order that may not ultimately provide net neutrality protections for American consumers; that might lay the groundwork for future regulation of the Internet; that may raise rates for the American Internet users; and that could stymie Internet adoption, innovation, and investment,” said Chairman Walden. Full Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) added, “Whether intended or not, the FCC’s approach brings with it a host of consequences that have the potential to disrupt the Internet we have come to know and rely on.” Chairman Upton added, “A legislative answer to the net neutrality question will finally put to rest years of litigation and uncertainty. Let’s work to avoid those landmines and get this done here, in Congress, where policy decisions belong.”
Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Anna Eshoo (D-CA) exchanged pleasantries. Robert McDowell, a former Republican FCC commissioner, co-wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal fearing that the rules could “trigger expanded jurisdiction of the Web” through international treaties, which could empower autocrats in Russia and China. Chairman Walden asked to enter McDowell’s op-ed in the subcommittee’s record, prompting eye-rolling from Rep Eshoo. Raising concerns about Internet censorship is “misinformed and irresponsible,” she said. The countries seeking to expand their power over the Web “are actively engaging in blocking their citizens’ access to information online, and that’s very important to have down in the record,” she added. “It’s not US policy -- it’s the stark opposite of it.” They also clashed over draft net neutrality legislation unveiled by Republicans this year that Rep Eshoo said prevents “follow-up” enforcement from the FCC by limiting some of its powers.
Recode’s Amy Schatz reports: The hearing followed an oft-used script. Republicans expressed disgust at the FCC’s proposal (the FCC vote “does not signal the end of this debate -- it is just the beginning,” warned Chairman Upton). Democrats defended their FCC counterparts (House members have “too much important work to do to have the same hearings over and over again,” said full Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ)). Three witnesses blasted the proposed rules. One witness defended them. Rinse. Repeat.
The three were former-Rep Rick Boucher (D-VA); Robert Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation; and Larry Downes, project director, Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy. Backing Title II was Public Knowledge President Gene Kimmelman.
Atkinson said the term network neutrality itself should be consigned to the dustbin of history. He said the Internet never has been neutral, and noted that traffic like real-time video needs to be prioritized over, say, e-mails, because where a millisecond is immaterial to the latter, it is by contrast crucial to the former. He said a rigid regulatory scheme like Title II did not fit the 'net both because of that rigidity and because of the legal and political uncertainty it produced. He suggested the FCC was attempting to fit the square peg of smart net policy into the round hole of Title II. Downes added his own metaphor in making the point that activists were already signaling they want to push the FCC toward the unbundling, last-mile access, build-out requirements and rate regulation (either before or after the fact), all of which the chairman has said would not apply under the new rules. Downes said that signaled that Open Internet rules were always the populist tail (or perhaps he meant "tale") that was wagging the shaggy Title II dog.
Kimmelman testified that “applying Title II to Internet access service will not impede carriers’ network investment. Tech investors and venture capitalists have been some of the most strident supporters of open Internet rules8 due to the importance of the virtuous cycle and the need to provide investors with confidence that the online services and edge providers they support will be free to compete and innovate with incumbent services without permission or payment to play.”
