Original URL: https://www.theregister.com/2011/01/07/open_internet_debate_at_ces/

FCC dubbed 'Ministry of Truth' over net neut rules

'Freedom is slavery' howls ideologue

By Rik Myslewski

Posted in Networks, 7th January 2011 06:18 GMT

CES 2011 A senior telecommunications counsel to the House Energy and Commerce committee has blasted the Federal Communications Commission for laying down official net neutrality rules, comparing the FCC to Orwell's Ministry of Truth.

Neil Fried – a Republican adviser to ranking members of the Energy and Commerce committee, the driving force on technology issues in the US House of Representatives – pulled out the 1984 metaphors during a panel discussion on Thursday at the Consumer Electronic Show in Las Vegas. "What struck me as I was reading it was it felt very much like I was in George Orwell's 1984, complete with doublethink and newspeak," Fried said of the FCC's order.

"It's the whole 'freedom is slavery' idea, right? To protect the internet, to keep the internet free, the government's gotta take over. Big Brother is gonna decide."

Just two weeks old, the FCC's order has quickly divided stakeholders into pro and con camps. At the Thursday CES session, those two opposing viewpoints were expressed in the most part in cordial and logical arguments. And then there was Fried.

AT&T's SVP for external and legislative affairs Jim Cicconi expressed reservations about the order – although he did praise the FCC for their "regulatory humilty" in not going too far. When asked for a yes-or-no answer as to whether he supported the order, however, he hedged. "We're comfortable with the order" he said.

Tom Tauke, Verizon EVP for public affairs, policy, and communication, was more succinct in his reply to the same question. "No," he said.

When asked if Verizon would sue over the legality of the order, Tauke also hedged. "I have a few rules by which I operate, one of which is when my boss gives a keynote speech in the morning, I try not to make news later in the day," he said.

But Tauke did leave the legal door wide open. "We are studying the order carefully to determine what course of action to take when the time comes, but I'm not in a position at this junction to say at this time what we may or may not do in a legal perpective relating to the order."

Such gentlemanly verbal petit fours were not on the menu of Neil Fried. He served up red meat. Fried – a former FCC attorney – came equipped with a prop: a copy of the FCC's order. Waving it, he asked the attendees: "How many people have read this thing?" Few hands were raised, so Fried seized the opportunity to explain what was in the document.

Cue Big Brother metaphor.

Speaking for his compatriots in the fight against the order, he continued: "The fear is, we don't want anyone to decide – right? – who has permission to innovate. Instead, we're going to go to the government to get the permission to innovate. Because ultimately, everybody – whether you're an edge provider or a broadband provider – is going to need to know: 'Is what I want to do reasonable?'"

Then back to Orwell: "And you're going to have to go to the Ministry of Truth" – a reference to the FCC – "to decide what's reasonable. It's very troubling."

Roger Sherman, Democratic chief counsel for communications and technology policy to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, took exception to the tone of Fried's remarks. "I think we're in for an extended period – maybe three of four months – of theater on this issue," he said.

"I took a class on George Orwell and 1984," he said. "I don't read [the order] that way. I don't see a Ministry of Truth. Some of the arguments you're hearing from Republicans about this is 'regulating the internet.' We think it's just the opposite: it's protecting the internet. It's said it's a threat to free speech. Again we think it's just the opposite. That it kills investment and jobs? No proof whatsoever that it does that."

Backing away from 1984, Fried explained the House Republicans' strategy for 2011. "I think you can count on, early in the year, one of the first telecom issues, one of the first technology issues, will be net neutrality. There'll be a series of hearings on everything from the substance to the authority and the process."

He then revealed specifics of the Republicans' plans. "Legislatively there's something called the Congressional Review Act, and the Congressional Review Act allows Congress to nullify any agncy decision with a simple majority in both chambers, and it's fillibuster-proof."

Fried also thinks that there's a better-than-even chance that such a joint resolution voiding the FCC order would pass. "Remember," he said, "we're going to have probably easily a majority [of votes] in the House, and very close to a majority of people opposed to this in the Senate. We only need, maybe, four or five Democrats to follow the Republicans, who are together on this."

Testing Obama's backbone

Fried admitted that President Obama would have to sign such a resolution for it to go into effect, but he implied – well, predicted – that Obama would back down. "{Net neutrality] was not a really not a very good issue in this Congressional cycle," he said. "There were 95 candidates that supported net neutrality, and all 95 lost."

After citing a poll by the right-leaning but generally respected Rasmussen Reports that indicated that most Americans prefer free-market competition over government regulation, Fried said: "I'm not sure that the president really wants this to be a national fight. He can veto it, but going into [the] 2012 [presidential election], I'm not sure that that's good politics."

Democrat Sherman stated that he thought Obama would stand his ground. "With the Republicans in control of the House," he said, "I think Neil's absolutely right: it's going to pass the House – the Congressional Review Act resolution will pass the House. I don't know what will happen in the Senate, but I'm pretty confident, based on what the president has said about the open internet – what the president said about the Open Internet order, specifically – that it's likely to meet a presidential veto."

About the Rasmussen poll, Sherman pointed out: "I would just caution that relying on polls for issues like net neutrality is perilous at best. This is a very complicated topic," he said. "You really can frame the question in a lot of different ways: 'Do you want Verizon to tell you what websites you can visit?', you'll get a different answer than the answers in Rasmussen."

Sherman also put in a plug for expertise. "On topics of incredibly complex technical issues like this, that's why we have expert agencies – to try to make a decision."

Sherman also implied that an effort by the Republicans to invoke the Congressional Review Act would be a waste of time. "We're going to spend a lot of time debating the issue, but it's going to end up in exactly the same place it is now, where some party that feels it's aggrieved by this is likely to challenge it in court, and we'll wait to see what happens there."

Such a court case would likely hinge on the FCC's powers – or lack of them – as did the Comcast/BitTorrent case, in which the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overrulled an FCC sanctioning of Comcast for throttling BitTorrent and other P2P connections. The court ruled that the FCC had overstepped its "statutorily mandated responsibilities."

The problem is that no one really agrees on what the FCC's powers actually are, and that legislation to better define them vis-à-vis the internet – wireline or wireless – has been blocked in Congress.

When discussing the need for congressional action on open internet regulations, Sherman cited an effort by Democratic Representative Henry Waxman to pass such a legislative framework, but said that although that effort "got really far," it "got caught up in end-of-session and election-year politics."

Sherman said that his party is more than willing to enter into negotiations to give the FCC a clearer mandate for open-internet regulations: "If the Republicans want to open this up, and talk about real ways to protect the internet, and not just gut what the FCC did," he said, "we certainly will be willing to discuss the matter. But we support the order and consider it a huge step forward."

Many voices have been raised in favor of legislation to clarify the FCC's internet-regulation mandate. In general, broadband providers and Republicans would prefer that mandate to be limited if not nonexistent, while content/service providers and Democrats would prefer strong regulation. The FCC's recent Report and Order was intended as a compromise – and, as in many compromises, neither side is all that pleased.

Congressional negotiations to clearly delineate the FCC's role in providing corporations with clear guidelines – which would please both shareholders and investors – while at the same time protecting both consumers and content providers would require sensitive, honest, and thoughtful negotiations and compromise on both sides.

That doesn't appear to be Fried's cup of tea. He's a man on a mission – to stick his finger in the eye of Big Brother and dynamite the Ministry of Truth. And with a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, he can smell the blood on that red meat.

And there will be more such fights in his Orwellian future. As he told his listeners, "We're not done yet. We're just getting started." ®