The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) met on Thursday to vote on Net Neutrality rules that outline provider disclosure practices, content blocking limitations, and anti-discrimination measures pertaining to network traffic.
While many sources are reporting correctly that the rules passed through the FCC with a 3-2 vote divided by political party lines, the thing that many news outlets don’t seem to be catching is that the complete details of the order have not yet been released by the FCC.
As PC Magazine’s article on the subject points out, “According to FCC rules, when there is dissent among the commissioners, the FCC must respond to the objections. When that response is filed, the full order will be made publicly available.” Until that time, we will not know the full scope of the rules the FCC has passed.
We can, however, judge a lot from the comments that have been made by the FCC commissioners involved in the vote.
As it stands, the order received support from the Democratic side of the FCC including Chairman Julius Genachowski and Democratic commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn.
Genachowski seemed to be the one person who was pleased by the measure, and made a case that these Net Neutrality rules are actually a more moderate course to take rather than the extremes of no government oversight or heavy regulation.
“On one end of the spectrum, there are those who say government should do nothing at all. On the other end of the spectrum are those who would adopt a set of detailed and rigid regulations," Genachowski said. "I reject both extremes in favor of a strong and sensible framework – one that protects Internet freedom and openness and promotes robust innovation and investment… For the first time, we’ll have enforceable rules of the road to preserve Internet freedom and openness.”
Though Copps and Clyburn approved the measures, they aren’t completely happy with them. They say that the order does not explicitly ban paid prioritization of internet traffic by providers, though the practice likely wouldn’t stand up to current FCC regulations concerning “unreasonable network management.” But without specific regulation, there is no way to predict the outcome until a situation actually arises. "I believe that prohibiting such arrangements would be more appropriate," Clyburn said.
Copps actually said that he considered voting against the order, but went ahead because he feared that if the measure did not pass, progress pertaining to net traffic, “would grind to a screeching halt for at least the next two years."
Republican commissioners Robert McDowell and Meredith A. Baker voted against the Net Neutrality order and have been very outspoken regarding their respective opinions.
McDowell was steadfastly opposed to the measures and said that the passing of the order, "marks one of the darkest days in recent FCC history."
"The FCC is not Congress; we cannot make laws," McDowell pointed out. "The FCC has provocatively charted a collision course with the legislative branch."
His four concerns about the order are as follows:
1. Nothing is broken in the Internet access market that needs fixing
2. The FCC does not have the legal authority to issue these rules
3. The rules are likely to cause irreparable harm
4. The existing law and Internet governance structures provide ample consumer protection in the event of market failure.
Ms. Baker seems to agree with McDowell’s stance, but her statement about the passing of the order was a simple one: "Respectfully I really, really, really dissent," she said.
Perhaps the most telling is Verizon’s initial reaction to the passing of the Net Neutrality order:
“While it will take some time for us to analyze the F.C.C.’s rules and the order once they are released, the F.C.C.’s decision apparently reaches far beyond the net neutrality rules it announced today. Based on today’s announcement, the FCC appears to assert broad authority for sweeping new regulation of broadband wireline and wireless networks and the Internet itself. This assertion of authority without solid statutory underpinnings will yield continued uncertainty for industry, innovators, and investors. In the long run, that is harmful to consumers and the nation,” the company said in a statement.
So, at the end of the day we have one happy FCC chairman; two unsure FCC commissioners; two steadfastly opposed FCC commissioners; and at least one unhappy corporation. It’s baffling to me how this order has actually passed. I’m very much interested to see what exactly is in this order once the details are released.
