FCC
Chairman Wheeler has released a statement outlining his thoughts on how the FCC
lawfully can press on for open and neutral Internet access; see http://fcc.us/1c2RBzv.
I
appreciate what Chairman Wheeler has attempted to do: avoid any unlawful mission
creep in light of the strong language in the Verizon decision, but also
run as far as possible with Sec. 706 authority. I do think the Commission
can move forward with muscular transparency/disclosure requirements. Just
now Netflix subscribers don't know the cause of any service degradation so
perhaps ISP disclosure requirements might provide some light on how frozen
images came about even for subscribers to FIOS service operating at
multi-megabit per second speeds.
I do think the Chairman and the
Commission will find a less than receptive D.C. Circuit should any order ignore
the clear prohibition on the imposition of Title II common carrier requirements
on ISPs. I don't see much wiggle room in the no blocking, no
discrimination area, nor am I as sanguine as the Chairman in terms of what
deference the data roaming decision affords the FCC. That decision
emphasized the use of commercial negotiations and the limited role of the FCC
and its ability to intervene.
One could draw a parallel between
the duty to negotiate, commercially driven data roaming terms and conditions
and the similar duty to negotiate retransmission consent between cable
operators and local television broadcasters. In both instances the
FCC cannot act proactively and has limited powers even to resolve a protracted
dispute. Unfortunately for broadband subscribers there won't be a specific
"must see" television program that forces one side to capitulate, so
degraded service and not so subtle abuses of last mile access may occur.
No comments:
Post a Comment