In a less
emphasized, but important initiative, the FCC set out its preemption of any
state attempt to legislate network neutrality rules. See Restoring Internet Freedom Order at ¶194
onward. OK, I get this logic: Internet
traffic has a fundamental and inseparable interstate characteristic. Balkanized policies could generate costs and
confusion.
However,
there are a number of inconvenient precedents that make the FCC’s preemption appear
as results-driven at the behest of powerful stakeholders keen on having the Commission
foreclose progressive states from possibly
demonstrating the upside benefits of an open Internet and the absence of all
the dire predictions of reduced innovation, investment and “freedom.”
First
let’s marvel at the irony of a Republican majority waxing poetic about the
benefits in federal preemption of the states.
So much for the talk about how state Public Utility Commissions operate
closer to where the “rubber meets the road.”
So much for relying on states serving as laboratories to identify best practices.
Next,
let us look at some on the reasons the FCC has declined to preempt, or
triggered judicial reversal when it attempted to preempt. Municipal Wi-Fi comes to mind, because that service
involves irrefutable, interstate service, e.g., from the global Internet cloud to
places like Chattanooga, Tennessee and Wilson, North Carolina where incumbent
carriers did not want municipalities to have the option for self-help when
these carriers refrained from providing broadband.
In
Tennessee v. FCC, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals (832 F.3d 597) reversed the
FCC’s state preemption attempts based on multiple rationales that might have
the same impact on network neutrality
preemption. The court was able to differentiate
the matter of municipal provision of broadband from the broader matter of
whether and how the FCC could preempt state law. Section 253 of the Telecommunications Act of
1996 contains some rock solid language favoring preemption when a state “prohibits”
or has the effect of prohibiting “the ability of any entity to provide any
interstate or intrastate telecommunications service.” Notwithstanding that rather clear and explicit
language, the 6th Circuit opted to read Section 253 as imposing no bar on the
power of a state legislature—no doubt urged on by stakeholders keen on
preserving any and all future options—to foreclose municipal governing entities
from providing a service increasingly viewed as essential.
The
court also noted how the FCC previously refrained from preempting when it had
an opportunity to do so where a state enacted a law prohibiting any sort of
municipal provision of telecommunications service. See Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League, 541
U.S. 125 (2004). Additionally, the court read Section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 as not including preemption as one of the tools
available to promote affordable and ubiquitous broadband access from places
like Wilson where broadband access would not be available unless the municipality
acted, because no incumbent had any
interest.
Does
this make sense and pass your smell test?
Would the court of public opinion defer to the wisdom of their elected
officials to preclude the formation of any new municipal water authority even
in instances where the incumbent goes bankrupt and no commercial venture wants
to acquire the assets?
Just
now we have traditional views of federalism conveniently superseded by loftier
notions of federal deregulatory consistency.
In the case of network neutrality, the FCC and its beneficiaries want to
prevent states from enacting laws, rather than have such laws upheld and
considered primary. Why has state law
become something readily swatted away by an all-powerful federal authority?
No comments:
Post a Comment