Companies and associations released statements following the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Comcast v. FCC, which held that the FCC exceeded its statutory authority in attempting to regulate that network management practices of broadband providers.

CTIA – The Wireless Association, a statement from President and CEO Steve Largent: 

Today’s unanimous and very thorough opinion in the Comcast case makes clear that the FCC needs to focus on the important task of making the promise of the National Broadband Plan a reality by spurring investment, innovation and job growth, and turn away from calls to impose restrictive regulations on broadband providers and the Internet ecosystem. We look forward to working with the FCC Chairman and Commissioners on these efforts, which are vital to U.S. leadership in the broadband age. This decision from the Court of Appeals suggests that it is time to turn away from murky regulatory debates and focus on connecting all Americans and leading the world in broadband.

Verizon statement, Randal S. Milch, executive vice president and general counsel:

Today’s decision in Comcast vs. FCC will have no impact on the experience of Internet users.  Consumers are in the driver’s seat in today’s market-driven Internet ecosystem, and their interests remain fully protected.  The court recognized that the FCC does have Title I ancillary authority over Internet access.  In this case, the FCC simply failed to link its actions to its statutory responsibilities.  The FCC’s authority supplements the various other consumer protection and competition laws that apply to all members of the Internet ecosystem.\

Comcast statement, Sena Fitzmaurice, vice president of government communications:

We are gratified by the Court’s decision today to vacate the previous FCC’s order.  Our primary goal was always to clear our name and reputation. We have always been focused on serving our customers and delivering the quality open-Internet experience consumers want.   Comcast remains committed to the FCC’s existing open Internet principles, and we will continue to work constructively with this FCC as it determines how best to increase broadband adoption and preserve an open and vibrant Internet.

AT&T statement, Jim Cicconi, senior executive vice president of external and legislative affairs:

AT&T made a commitment to abide by the FCC’s Open Internet Principles when they were first formulated in 2005, and we will continue to do so. Those facts have not been changed by today’s action by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. AT&T supports an open Internet. That is what our customers count on us to deliver, and we will not disappoint them. (continue reading…)

When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit came out with its ruling today stating that the FCC exceeded its authority in slapping Comcast’s wrists for deliberately slowing Internet traffic for a few bandwidth hogs, a number of commentators predicted that this will touch off a flurry of activity from the FCC and, from those bemoaning the current dire state of the Internet, an attempt to get net neutrality back on track.  And if the past year can be taken as prologue, they may get what they’re looking for.

The whole mishigas surrounds two of the core issues that have been around since Al Gore pressed the Internet’s ‘On’ button: Who’s in charge of this thing and When are they going to start ordering me around?   As we can see from the unanimous decision handed down today, the answer to the first question is, Not the FCC. This comes at a very bad time for FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, as the FCC has a number of net neutrality irons in the fire with the Open Internet Rulemaking and the National Broadband Plan, and this decisionthrows into doubt anything the FCC tries to do to promote net neutrality under its ancillary authority  under Title I of the Telecom Act (i.e., also referred to as the “Because I’m the Mommy and I Say So” doctrine).

Unfortunately, due to the answer of the first question, the answer to the second question just might come sooner than we had expected. The FCC has been seen stroking its collective moustache thoughtfully as some commentators call on them to reclassify broadband service as a Title II communications service (like telephone service), so the commission can assert more authority over it.  Of course, trying to shoehorn broadband into a 19th Century framework like telephone service would be disastrous for obvious reasons, and some not-so obvious reasons.

Right now network providers have an incentive to build out their network to new areas and offer new innovative services because they’re allowed to reap the benefits of their investments.  Manufacturers benefit because they produce the fiber optic cable, the entrenching machinery and tools, the conduit, the servers, the software, and all the sundry nuts, bolts and widgets that go into constructing the vast network.  Plus, as the network gets built out, manufacturers in more remote locations get access to high-speed services.  Workers benefit because jobs are created, not only to make said sundry nuts, bolts and widgets, but in areas where broadband has been newly deployed. (continue reading…)

Responses to FCC Chairman Genachowski’s speech proposing a process to arrive at federal “net neutrality” regulations.

The Washington Post reports, “AT&T Says Keep Net Neutrality Rules Off Wireless“:

In response to the announcement, AT&T officials said they would support broadly the principles outlined by Genachowski for their wireline business. They don’t think the rules should apply to wireless.

“We are concerned, however, that the FCC appears ready to extend the entire array of net neutrality requirements to what is perhaps the most competitive consumer market in America, wireless services,” Jim Cicconi, AT&T’s senior vice president of external and legislative affairs, said in a statement.

From The Hill, “FCC chairman outlines net neutrality rules“:

Verizon Vice President of Regulatory Affairs David Young said the company supports an open Internet, but said placing formal rules over network operations could lead “to unintended consequences.”

“We certainly don’t want to see the Internet locked in stone as it is today,” he said. “The Internet needs to be free to continue to evolve.”

From CTIA — the Wireless Association, a statement from Vice President of Regulatory Affairs Chris Guttman-McCabe, excerpts:

As we have said before, we are concerned about the unintended consequences Internet regulation would have on consumers considering that competition within the industry has spurred innovation, investment, and growth for the U.S. economy.

As a justification for the adoption of rules, the Chairman suggested that one reason for concern ‘has to do with limited competition among service providers.’ This is at the core of our concerns. Unlike the other platforms that would be subject to the rules, the wireless industry is extremely competitive, extremely innovative, and extremely personal. How do the rules apply to the single-purpose Amazon Kindle? How does it apply to Google’s efforts to cache content to provide a better consumer experience? How about the efforts from Apple and Android, Blackberry and Nokia, Firefly and others to differentiate the products and services they develop for consumers? Should all product and service offerings be the same?

Note, as well, Guttman-McCabe’s comments on investment.

(continue reading…)

The Federal Communications Commission has launched a new website — www.openinternet.gov — which features today’s speech at the Brookings Institution by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, “Preserving a Free and Open Internet: A Platform for Innovation, Opportunity, and Prosperity.”

Chairman Genachowski proposed making the four principles of Internet openness as Commission rules and adds two more:

Fifth Principle of Non-Discrimination

The fifth principle is one of non-discrimination — stating that broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications.

Sixth Principle of Transparency

The sixth principle is a transparency principle — stating that providers of broadband Internet access must be transparent about their network management practices.

Genachowski said he would distribute proposed rules to his FCC colleagues and follow through with a proposed rule-making to bring the public into the process.

He added:
• The FCC will look at each violation on a case-by-case basis;
• Adherence to these principles would not require the disclosure of consumer PII, economically sensitive data, proprietary technologies, or network management strategies; and
• These principles would apply to all modes of internet access, including mobile architectures.

To this layman, it seemed like a very general speech. The Chairman argued, “This is not about government regulation of the Internet. It’s about fair rules of the road for companies that control access to the Internet. We will do as much as we need to do, and no more, to ensure that the Internet remains an unfettered platform for competition, creativity, and entrepreneurial activity.” Good!

From the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, “Commerce Committee Approves Nominees”

WASHINGTON D.C. – Today the U.S. Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee conducted an off the floor markup on the nominations of:

 

•       Ms. Inez M. Tenenbaum: To be Chairman and Commissioner of the United States Consumer

         Product Safety Commission

 

•        Mr. Julius Genachowski: To be Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission

 

•        Mr. Robert McDowell: To be Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission

 

•        The Committee also considered nominations for promotion of U.S. Coast Guard officers.

 

The nominees were all successfully voted out of Committee. 

The Heritage Foundation hosted FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell today at the weekly Blogger’s Luncheon, ostensibly to apologize for the FCC rapping Comcast on the knuckles, all in the name of Net Neutrality. Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate joined Commissioner McDowell in voting against the majority in demonizing Comcast, as they saw that there was no evidence that Comcast actually did anything wrong. For those of you who have better things to do on a summer day than pay attention to the FCC, here’s a quick and dirty recap of the issue: Comcast network managers spotted a huge spike in bandwidth during a period of peak Internet usage, tracing it to kids downloading hundreds of megabytes of movies and music from BitTorrent, a media downloading site. Acting as traffic cops, Comcast decided to slow down the flow of bits from BitTorrent in favor of traffic from other applications and sites that are more dependant upon the speedy flow of bits, such as VoIP.

In the words of Net Neutrality pundits, they’ve committed the sin of Internet Discrimination. It would seem as if the FCC agrees as well. In a series of public hearings a la traveling road show, Comcast was held up for the masses to pelt them with rocks and garbage while yelling “burn the witch.” In a turn worthy of John Cleese and Eric Idle, the FCC on August 1 decided to do just that, and ordered Comcast to stop impeding traffic on the Internet and make transparent their policies to their customers, lest they be whacked with fines. Okay, maybe it wasn’t a burning per se, more like an uncomfortable stay in the sauna, but the intent was there.

But what did Comcast do to deserve this punishment? They violated the FCC’s Broadband Policy Principles. Let me reiterate the last part: PRINCIPLES. Not laws, not regulations, not rules, but principles (See ‘em here). They were developed with no public hearing, no notice of rule making, no due process. Legally speaking, they’re most likely unenforceable. The sad part is that Chairman Martin yelled “witch,” too.

But Comcast sinned, did they not? Phooey. In reality, they’ve practiced the virtue of Responsible Network Management. In their role as a traffic cop on their stretch of the Information Superhighway, they saw a bandwidth hog that would’ve backed up rush-hour traffic and they took it out of the HOV lane.

Commissioner McDowell said that this will be very easy for Comcast to appeal, as the FCC has no rules in place for this, thus no authority to enforce anything. Citing the “Brand X” Supreme Court Decision (stating that cable Internet companies provide “information services” governed by Title I of the Communications Act and are not “telecommunications services” under Title II), the cable companies are under no obligation to treat all traffic equally. That’s the law.

Talk to anyone who knows anything about network management and they’ll tell you that the Internet is ALL ABOUT discrimination – choosing which packet needs priority over another. For instance, it’s more important that VoIP packets get priority over a packet with part of the best sports clip ever filmed because a VoIP call requires complete synchronicity lest confusion, echoing and dead silence ruin the call. If my sport clip packet is delayed because of your VoIP packet got priority, the clip may download in 12 seconds instead of 10. That’s something I can live with.

But what if this is some kind of nefarious plot from Comcast to slow down the Internet sites that compete with them? Commissioner McDowell says to check out the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Act as your remedy. Tried and tested, it’s been around since 1890 and is reasonably sure to have the most evil of corporate malfeasors quaking in their Bruno Magli wingtips as soon as they see the summons.

Maybe in the end, the Comcast decision will be a good thing – if upheld, it’ll show Congress that the process works and the FCC is protecting the interests of the Internet consumer, and there’s no need for intrusive legislation. I suggested this to Commissioner McDowell, and he told me in so many words to go and click my ruby heels together (in a polite way, of course). “Appeasement doesn’t work,” were his exact words. Ah, well.