Comments pour into FCC on broadband reclassification

GOOGLE. The search company’s
Washington telecom and media counsel Richard Whitt described
the comment in a blog post: “In a letter to the agency two months ago, Google
along with other technology companies expressed the view that the Third Way
framework ‘will create a legally sound, light-touch regulatory framework that
benefits consumers, technology companies and broadband Internet access
providers. We still believe this is a true statement.’”

AT&T. Here’s how AT&T
senior vice president of federal regulatory affairs Bob Quinn describes
the company’s filing in a blog post: It “packages up all that is wrong with the
Commission’s approach, including how the plan would scuttle the Administration’s
ambitious broadband deployment and adoption agenda, and chill multi-billion
dollar private sector investment and job creation. We also debunk the notion
that this is the only way to accomplish the FCC’s National Broadband Plan core
objectives, and we highlight the plethora of legal problems and uncertainties
that would sweep through the Internet ecosystem.” 

VERIZON. Verizon’s filing
said the FCC’s proposal is “based on an incorrect reading of the [appeals
court] decision,” faces “insurmountable legal and factual obstacles,” and “is
in reality a return to the old way.” The company proposed its own solution: “The
commission should pursue a genuine ‘third way’ built on the Internet’s
successful model of self-governance based on technical standards and best
practices, with the government serving as a backstop on a case-by-case basis in
the event industry mechanisms prove unable to resolve the issue.” 

NATIONAL CABLE &
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION. NCTA’s filing argues that the FCC “has no legal
authority to classify any part of broadband Internet access service as a common
carrier offering. Such a reclassification would be fundamentally at odds with
the nature of Internet access service, which remains the information service
that the Commission has consistently found it to be. Not only would reversing
this long-standing policy be legally unsupportable, it would also thwart rather
than promote investment in broadband facilities and undermine the serious
reliance interests of broadband providers and others in the existing regulatory
regime. The Commission retains ancillary authority to meet legitimate policy
objectives. Any ambiguities in the Commission’s authority should be addressed
by Congress rather than through an effort to impose legacy common carrier
regulation on broadband.”

OPEN INTERNET COALITION.
Markham Erickson, OIC executive director, issued the following statement on the
group’s comment: “In light of the Comcast decision, the Commission’s ability to
implement this mission, key parts of the broadband plan designed to protect and
promote adoption of the open Internet are in serious question. As a result,
continuing to operate under the questionable theory of Title I ancillary
jurisdiction is a path guaranteed to result in uncertainty, unwanted litigation
and delay for the Commission and its stakeholders. It may ultimately lead to
the inability of the FCC to implement its own broadband plan as well as and
President Obama’s key tech priorities.”

FREE PRESS. Derek Turner,
research director of Free Press, said the following on the group’s comment: “Chairman
Genachowski has laid out the right plan to restore the Commission’s authority
over broadband networks and provide a stable legal foundation for our nation’s
most critical communications infrastructure. The agency needs to move quickly
to vote on the proposal, as any further delay leaves millions of broadband
customers without basic consumer protections and threatens the future of the
open Internet.”

PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. “The legal framework for the Commission’s
authority over broadband will provide the foundation for every single decision
and policy from affordable access to public safety. The Commission cannot
fulfill its obligations to the American people and ensure continued, robust
innovation and investment in the face of perpetual uncertainty over its
authority to act. The decision the FCC makes here will be one of the most
fundamental rulings the Commission will ever make,” said PK Legal Director
Harold Feld. “It is crucial for the FCC to recognize that in 2010, services
connecting customers to the Internet fall under the traditional category of
telecommunications services, which the FCC in 2002 did not understand when it
made a different ruling.”