Feeds

FCC chair floats 'Third Way' to regulate net

'Narrow and tailored'

Choosing a cloud hosting partner with confidence

US Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski has issued his much-anticipated response to the April federal appeals court decision that threw a spanner into the works of his net-neutrality crusade.

That decision said that the FCC had exceeded its authority when it ordered Comcast to stop choking BitTorrent and other P2P services back in 2008. According to the appeals court, the FCC does not have the authority to "regulate an Internet service provider's network management practices."

Internet pipe providers such as Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Cablevision applauded the April decision. Pipe users such as Google and Skype - not so much. Genachowski, whose office had just released its long-awaited National Broadband Plan, found himself suddenly shorn of the range of powers he needed to implement it.

And so on Thursday, Genachowski revealed his response, a "narrow and tailored approach" to broadband regulation that will fully please neither pipe owners nor pipe users. The FCC chairman dubs his approach "The Third Way."

Genachowski contends that there is a broad national consensus that the FCC's role in internet-access regulation should be limited - but not absent. His Third Way envisions what he refers to as a light-touch approach. "Heavy-handed prescriptive regulation can chill investment and innovation," he writes, "and a do-nothing approach can leave consumers unprotected and competition unpromoted."

But the Comcast decision, Genachowski writes, makes it difficult for the FCC to do its job because it "creates serious uncertainty about the Commission’s ability ... to perform the basic oversight functions, and pursue the basic broadband-related policies, that have been long and widely thought essential and appropriate."

From his point of view, the debate over what to do about this conundrum has focused on two primary solutions. The first, named after Title I of the FCC-enabling Communications Act, would be to simply accept what has become known as the FCC's "ancillary" authority, which classifies the internet not as a telecommunications service but as an information service, a classification that gives the commission only limited powers.

The second solution, Title II, would be for the FCC to reclassify internet communications as telecommunications, thus bringing them under the same direct FCC authority as are phone companies.

"I have serious reservations about both of these approaches," Genachowski writes.

The first solution would, in his opinion, "involve a protracted, piecemeal approach" that would as likely as not result in multiple court battle - and also as likely as not ending up with the same result as the Comcast case.

The second, since it would treat internet-access providers like phone companies, would "subject the providers of broadband communications services to extensive regulations ill-suited to broadband."

And so Genachowski suggests his aforementioned "Third Way," a legal framework drawn up by FCC General Counsel Austin Schlick. In a nutshell, the Third Way is a compromise between the "ancillary" and reclassification approaches, and provides the FCC with a limited extension of regulatory powers.

The next step, Genachowski writes, will be a "public process seeking comment on this narrow and tailored approach" - but the FCC chairman didn't have to wait long for that process to begin. Of the five-person FCC board, the two Republicans, Robert McDowell and Meridith Baker, issued a joint statement (PDF) that characterizes Genachowski's approach as a "dramatic step to regulate the Internet," and which says it crosses "a regulatory Rubicon" to bring the Internet under Title II.

Which, of course, is exactly what Genachowski says his Third Way doesn't do. But McDowell and Baker apparently don't believe him, calling his proposal "a stark departure from the long-established bipartisan framework," "onerous," and "an attempt to foist burdensome rules excavated from the early-Ma Bell-monopoly era onto 21st Century networks [that] will usher in a tumultuous new age of regulatory uncertainty," pose "serious ramifications across the globe," and invite a "stinging rebuke" from the courts for "attempting to shatter the boundaries" of the commission's authority.

Comcast's VP of government communications, Sena Fitzmaurice, was more diplomatic: "While we are disappointed with the inclination not to lean in favor of Title I regulation, we are prepared to work constructively with the Commission to determine whether there is a 'third way' approach that allows the Commission to take limited but effective measures to preserve an open Internet and implement critical features of the National Broadband Plan, but does not cast the kind of regulatory cloud that would chill investment and innovation by ISPs."

Fitzmaurice also noted that "We ... appreciate the Chairman's desire to take extremes off the table and to try to develop a path to providing ISPs and others in the Internet ecosystem with clear rules of the road about what consumers expect of them, including the Commission's need to have authority to address complaints should any arise, while avoiding the elements of Title II that are destructive to our business."

While Fitzmaurice may appreciate Genachowski's desire to take extremes off the table, the FCC chairman may be hoping that the two Republicans on his panel might do the same. In any case, though, he needs only three votes on the Comission to approve his Third Way: his own, and those of his two fellow Democrats, Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn.

And those votes are apparently in the bag. Copps issued a generally supportive statement, but noted: "Frankly, I would have preferred plain and simple Title II reclassification." Clyburn showed his hand when speaking Thursday at the New Media Entrepreneurship Conference, asking his audience: "Exactly what kind of Internet do you want going forward? One that is yours or one that is controlled, policed, and regulated by industry? For me, the choice is simple."

And that choice isn't the internet preferred by fellow commissioners McDowell and Baker. ®

Security for virtualized datacentres

More from The Register

next story
TEEN RAMPAGE: Kids in iPhone 6 'Will it bend' YouTube 'prank'
iPhones bent in Norwich? As if the place wasn't weird enough
Consumers agree to give up first-born child for free Wi-Fi – survey
This Herod network's ace – but crap reception in bullrushes
Crouching tiger, FAST ASLEEP dragon: Smugglers can't shift iPhone 6s
China's grey market reports 'sluggish' sales of Apple mobe
Sea-Me-We 5 construction starts
New sub cable to go live 2016
New EU digi-commish struggles with concepts of net neutrality
Oettinger all about the infrastructure – but not big on substance
PEAK IPV4? Global IPv6 traffic is growing, DDoS dying, says Akamai
First time the cache network has seen drop in use of 32-bit-wide IP addresses
EE coughs to BROKEN data usage metrics BLUNDER that short-changes customers
Carrier apologises for 'inflated' measurements cockup
Comcast: Help, help, FCC. Netflix and pals are EXTORTIONISTS
The others guys are being mean so therefore ... monopoly all good, yeah?
prev story

Whitepapers

Forging a new future with identity relationship management
Learn about ForgeRock's next generation IRM platform and how it is designed to empower CEOS's and enterprises to engage with consumers.
Storage capacity and performance optimization at Mizuno USA
Mizuno USA turn to Tegile storage technology to solve both their SAN and backup issues.
The next step in data security
With recent increased privacy concerns and computers becoming more powerful, the chance of hackers being able to crack smaller-sized RSA keys increases.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.
A strategic approach to identity relationship management
ForgeRock commissioned Forrester to evaluate companies’ IAM practices and requirements when it comes to customer-facing scenarios versus employee-facing ones.