We are a week away from the Net Neutrality vote. Given the apparent decision not to use Title II to justify Net Neutrality rules, the Chairman should close Title II today. If not, the Commission should provide a public rationale to consumers and investors why such a jobs-killing proposal remains open.
In June, the Chairman initiated a proceeding to determine if broadband should be classified as a Title II service. Today, broadband is a Title I service. I still believe that even proposing to reclassify and regulate an entire sector of the Internet under Title II—the most intrusive regulatory tool available to the Commission—was wrong. The threat of Title II has been an economic drag on the entire industry for the summer.
The National Broadband Plan released in March asks broadband providers of all sizes to expand their service, deploy to more homes, and then in June we undercut their ability to raise the capital necessary to do so. Specifically, Title II’s highly prescriptive, rate regulation approach to networks —treating today’s networks as if they were 19th century common carrier offerings—would stifle investment. Title II would harm the incentives for investment in broadband infrastructure and make providers and investors alike think twice about moving forward with network investments.
Given the grave consequences of a Title II approach, I am pleased to see the Chairman has apparently rejected using Title II to support his Net Neutrality rules. In announcing his intent to move forward with Net Neutrality rules, the Chairman said last week that his approach “would increase certainty in the marketplace, and spur investment both at the edge and in the core of our broadband networks.”
Part of that certainty to the marketplace must be an end to the Title II docket. What certainty can the Commission provide industry if there remains an open and active docket under which three Commissioners—at any time—could flip a switch and treat broadband as a monopoly-era service? By closing Title II, the Chairman can signal definitively to the Internet sector that our widely successful pro-growth, pro-investment approach to broadband under Title I remains the right policy for today and tomorrow’s Internet.
The way I see it, the pretense the broadband access isn't a "telecommunications service" isn't a remotely credible interpretation of the law. I think Justice Scalia had something to say about that in his dissent in Brand X.
But if Title II is such a bad idea, wouldn't it be much more effective then to ask Congress to repeal Title II completely? If Title II is a disaster for broadband access, surely it is also a disaster for every other service it encompasses. If Title II stifles investment in broadband access, surely it is also stifling investment in traditional telecommunications. Why the difference?
I couldn't agree with Mark Butler's comment more. He is dead on..
The way I see it, the pretense the broadband access isn't a "telecommunications service" isn't a remotely credible interpretation of the law. I think Justice Scalia had something to say about that in his dissent in Brand X.
But if Title II is such a bad idea, wouldn't it be much more effective then to ask Congress to repeal Title II completely? If Title II is a disaster for broadband access, surely it is also a disaster for every other service it encompasses. If Title II stifles investment in broadband access, surely it is also stifling investment in traditional telecommunications. Why the difference?