Suzanimal
06-19-2016, 11:27 AM
Hundreds of people have been burrowing into this week’s D.C. District Court of Appeals 2-1 decision giving the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) everything it wanted and more in its campaign for net neutrality regulation, or conversion of the Internet into a public utility with FCC as overlord.
Entropy Economics’ Bret Swanson summed it up well:
The court upheld not only the FCC’s reclassification of broadband as a Title II telecom service (a switch from its previous designation as a lightly regulated Title I information service), it also allowed the FCC’s redefinition of the Internet itself, the sweeping of mobile broadband into Title II. (Emphasis in original.)
What’s most disappointing is how threats that warned of many years ago by many were exactly what came to pass, and now FCC will be spending all its time interfering at every level – the opposite of what’s needed to ensure investment and network proliferation. That means eventual score-settling against content and app providers who cheered FCC on, as they become subject to newfangled “neutrality” mandates that tomorrow’s creative regulators will dream up. (See my piece on “FCC's Net Neutrality Order To Ensnare Content And App Providers.”)
This matter will go to a full en banc hearing and/or the U.S. Supreme Court, but even a partial relaxation of FCC’s power grab (also pressed by President Obama; see “Barack Obama as FCC Chairman”) it will remain devastating. As with financial regulation, the Internet is being teed up to become an entity that FCC controls with ease, without legislation from Congress, without writing down any formal regulations at all, and perhaps even without writing anything. You’ll just ask permission before you move. On page 106 of the FCC’s 400-page regulatory order, the agency intones.
We conclude that use of advisory opinions similar to those issued by DOJ’s Antitrust Division is in the public interest and would advance the Commission’s goal of providing legal certainty. Although the Commission historically has not used advisory opinions to promote compliance with our rules, we conclude that they have the potential to serve as useful tools to provide clarity, guidance, and predictability concerning the open Internet rules. Advisory opinions will enable companies to seek guidance on the propriety of certain open Internet practices before implementing them, enabling them to be proactive about compliance and avoid enforcement actions later. (Emphasis added.)
...
https://cei.org/blog/wireless-net-neutrality-you-were-warned
Entropy Economics’ Bret Swanson summed it up well:
The court upheld not only the FCC’s reclassification of broadband as a Title II telecom service (a switch from its previous designation as a lightly regulated Title I information service), it also allowed the FCC’s redefinition of the Internet itself, the sweeping of mobile broadband into Title II. (Emphasis in original.)
What’s most disappointing is how threats that warned of many years ago by many were exactly what came to pass, and now FCC will be spending all its time interfering at every level – the opposite of what’s needed to ensure investment and network proliferation. That means eventual score-settling against content and app providers who cheered FCC on, as they become subject to newfangled “neutrality” mandates that tomorrow’s creative regulators will dream up. (See my piece on “FCC's Net Neutrality Order To Ensnare Content And App Providers.”)
This matter will go to a full en banc hearing and/or the U.S. Supreme Court, but even a partial relaxation of FCC’s power grab (also pressed by President Obama; see “Barack Obama as FCC Chairman”) it will remain devastating. As with financial regulation, the Internet is being teed up to become an entity that FCC controls with ease, without legislation from Congress, without writing down any formal regulations at all, and perhaps even without writing anything. You’ll just ask permission before you move. On page 106 of the FCC’s 400-page regulatory order, the agency intones.
We conclude that use of advisory opinions similar to those issued by DOJ’s Antitrust Division is in the public interest and would advance the Commission’s goal of providing legal certainty. Although the Commission historically has not used advisory opinions to promote compliance with our rules, we conclude that they have the potential to serve as useful tools to provide clarity, guidance, and predictability concerning the open Internet rules. Advisory opinions will enable companies to seek guidance on the propriety of certain open Internet practices before implementing them, enabling them to be proactive about compliance and avoid enforcement actions later. (Emphasis added.)
...
https://cei.org/blog/wireless-net-neutrality-you-were-warned