‘Net neutrality’ gets mixed reviews

The Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday (Dec. 21) voted 3-2 on new rules that it contends will protect consumers by prohibiting broadband companies from interfering with Internet traffic.

Known as "net neutrality," the new FCC rules suggest that phone and cable companies cannot discriminate or show favoritism regarding Internet content.

However, critics abound on both sides of the decision, which split among party lines among the commission. Public interest groups maintain that the FCC decision does not go far enough in regulating Internet use; another faction of laissez faire supporters contend that there is no need for government regulation of the Internet at this juncture.

The FCC rules would create more transparency and disclosure among broadband providers, restrict the blockage of legal content and services, and establish enforcement procedures to monitor abuses.

Several Congressional leaders have already threatened action to block or delay the FCC’s net neutrality regulations. Other groups have suggested pending litigation to challenge the rules, which have been previously ruled on in federal court.

Closer to home, representatives from Internet service providers and companies involved in Internet-related businesses in Arkansas offered views, according to this report from Talk Business.

• Mike Rhoda, SVP of Government Affairs for Little Rock-based Windstream
Windstream supports an open and vibrant Internet like we have today. The FCC’s action was unnecessary. The disparate application of the rules on competing companies based on whether they employ wired or wireless technologies is arbitrary and could distort the market. With this decision behind it, we hope that the Commission now will focus on expanding broadband availability, particularly in rural America where the costs remain prohibitive.

• Tom Kirkham, CEO, Fort Smith-based Kirkham Systems
In and of itself, it is my belief that net neutrality is a necessary thing — only because of a lack of competition. But what the FCC is doing is not playing by the rules. They’re bargaining for a lot more control, which a federal court of appeals questioned their ability to get into. In effect, for what they’re phrasing as net neutrality is not in the spirit of what net neutrality is. They bargained away a lot of things that would qualify as net neutrality.

• Jim Cicconi, SVP External & Legislative Affairs, AT&T
For far too long, the question of net neutrality has hamstrung the FCC and prevented needed action on far more urgent, and real, problems. Today’s vote, we trust, will put this issue behind us with a compromise that appears to balance major differences despite a number of lingering concerns.

We appreciate the views expressed publicly by Commissioners McDowell and Baker.  Theirs is, we feel, a position supported by the factual record in front of the Commission, and by law. It would also be our preference, especially given the utter absence of any evidence that abuses are occurring in the Internet market, let alone any of the gravity to justify government intervention.

At the same time, we recognize the determination of the Chairman to move forward with a rulemaking. In this circumstance, which is not ideal, our overarching concern is to bring market certainty so that investment and job creation can go forward, while ensuring that we can still meet the expectations of our customers. Though a final view must await a careful reading of the FCC’s order, we believe the Chairman’s compromise can provide this certainty while taking steps to preserve flexibility for investment and innovation.

• Tom Tauke, EVP Public Affairs & Policy, Verizon
Although we share with the FCC the overarching goals of an open Internet, we are deeply concerned by today’s 3-2 decision. The FCC’s majority breaks with years of bipartisan communications policies that recognized that Internet innovation and investment — and the jobs they create — thrive without government intervention. There is no doubt that the policies put in place by the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration to jumpstart innovation and the spread of broadband worked. As a result, America’s broadband and Internet marketplace is intensely competitive and an engine of economic growth, job creation and multibillion-dollar investment. Today’s decision, however, unnecessarily departs from these successful policies.

While it will take some time for us to analyze the FCC’s rules and the order once they are released, the FCC’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.