Top Ten Questions to Ask About Title II Utility Regulation of Internet

 

If Congress or the media seek incisive oversight/accountability questions to ask the FCC about the real world implications and unintended consequences of its Title II net neutrality plans, here are ten that fit the bill.

 

1. Authority? If the FCC truly needs more legal authority to do what it believes necessary in the 21^st century, why doesn’t the FCC start the FCC modernization process and ask Congress for the legitimacy of real modern legislative authorities? Or is it the official position of the FCC that its core 1934 and 1996 statutory authorities are sufficiently timeless, modern and flexible to sustain the legitimacy of FCC regulation for the remainder of the 21st century?

2. Growth & Job Creation? While it may be good for the FCC’s own power in the short-term to impose its most antiquated authority and restrictive Title II regulations on the most modern part of the economy, how would that heavy-handed regulation be good or positive for net private investment, economic growth and job creation?  

3. Zero-price? Does the FCC seek new legal theories and authority for the purposes of setting a de facto permanent zero-price for some form of downstream Internet traffic, or not?

4. Consumers? How is it neutral, equal or fair under FCC net neutrality regulations for consumers to pay for faster Internet speed tiers/lanes and their Internet usage, but it is somehow a violation of net neutrality for Silicon Valley giants to pay anything other than a price of zero for delivery of their hugely-outsized downstream Internet traffic? (And why would FCC Title II reclassification also not have the unintended consequence of triggering large new fees and taxes on unsuspecting consumers?)

5. UN-ITU? Would the FCC reclassifying Internet traffic as “telecommunications” enable the U.N.’s International Telecommunications Union the legal authority and cover to assert governance over the Internet like it has long had over international telecommunications, and International telecommunications trade settlements? (And in imposing the most restrictive American regulatory regime available to prevent potential problems, wouldn’t the FCC be leading, and giving political cover to, autocratic nations which seek to impose similar maximal regulation of their Internet for the autocratic purposes of censoring, spying on, and controlling their people?)

6. Cost-Benefit?In any potential Title II action will the FCC abide by the President’s 2011 Executive Order 13563 that requires the FCC to use “the least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends,” and to “adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs?”

7. Forbearance? Under a “hybrid” (Title II/Section 706) approach, how does the FCC square the circle of the FCC justifying forbearance from most all Title II regulations by showing there is enough competition to protect consumers, while simultaneously justifying reclassification of the Internet as a Title II utility because of insufficient competition to protect consumers?   

8. Deployment Barriers? Since Section 706 is about removing barriers to broadband deployment, how would Title II Section 214, which requires that the FCC get prior approval to upgrade any “telecommunications” facilities (a process that can routinely takes months at a minimum), not be considered to be a barrier to broadband deployment under Section 706?   

9. Internet Backbone? What is different competitively in the Internet backbone market now from the last 20 years of no FCC regulation, that warrants maximal FCC regulation under Title II for the first time since the Internet was privatized in the early 1990s?   

10. Supreme Court? Wouldn’t a June 2014 Supreme Court precedent (Util. Air Reg. Grp v. EPA) -- that establishes that FCC rules “must be “ground[ed] … in the statute,” rather than on “reasoning divorced from the statutory text” – disallow the FCC from reclassifying services solely for the purpose of evading other statutory provisions that Congress passed to restrict FCC authority?

***

 

FCC Open Internet Order Series

 

Part 1: The Many Vulnerabilities of an Open Internet [9-24-09]

 

Part 2: Why FCC proposed net neutrality regs unconstitutional, NPR Online Op-ed [9-24-09]

 

Part 3: Takeaways from FCC's Proposed Open Internet Regs [10-22-09]

 

Part 4: How FCC Regulation Would Change the Internet [10-30-09]

 

Part 5: Is FCC Declaring 'Open Season' on Internet Freedom? [11-17-09]

 

Part 6: Critical Gaps in FCC’s Proposed Open Internet Regulations [11-30-09]

 

Part 7: Takeaways from the FCC's Open Internet Further Inquiry [9-2-10]

 

Part 8: An FCC "Data-Driven" Double Standard? [10-27-10]

 

Part 9: Election Takeaways for the FCC [11-3-10]

 

Part 10: Irony of Little Openness in FCC Open Internet Reg-making [11-19-10]

 

Part 11: FCC Regulating Internet to Prevent Companies from Regulating Internet [11-22-10]

 

Part 12: Where is the FCC's Legitimacy? [11-22-10]

 

Part 13: Will FCC Preserve or Change the Internet? [12-17-10]

 

Part 14: FCC Internet Price Regulation & Micro-management? [12-20-10]

 

Part 15: FCC Open Internet Decision Take-aways [12-21-10]

 

Part 16: FCC Defines Broadband Service as "BIAS"-ed [12-22-10]

 

Part 17: Why FCC's Net Regs Need Administration/Congressional Regulatory Review [1-3-11]

 

Part 18: Welcome to the FCC-Centric Internet [1-25-11]

 

Part 19: FCC's Net Regs in Conflict with President's Pledges [1-26-11]

 

Part 20: Will FCC Respect President's Call for "Least Burdensome" Regulation? [2-3-11]

 

Part 21: FCC's In Search of Relevance in 706 Report [5-23-11]

 

Part 22: The FCC's public wireless network blocks lawful Internet traffic [6-13-11]

 

Part 23: Why FCC Net Neutrality Regs Are So Vulnerable [9-8-11]

 

Part 24: Why Verizon Wins Appeal of FCC's Net Regs [9-30-11]

 

Part 25: Supreme Court likely to leash FCC to the law [10-10-12]

 

Part 26: What Court Data Roaming Decision Means for FCC Open Internet Order [12-4-12]

 

Part 27: Oops! Crawford’s Model Broadband Nation, Korea, Opposes Net Neutrality [2-26-13]

 

Part 28:Little Impact on FCC Open Internet Order from SCOTUS Chevron Decision [5-21-13]

 

Part 29: More Legal Trouble for FCC’s Open Internet Order & Net Neutrality [6-2-13]

 

Part 30:U.S. Competition Beats EU Regulation in Broadband Race [6-21-13]

 

Part 31:Defending Google Fiber’s Reasonable Network Management [7-30-13]

 

Part 32: Capricious Net Neutrality Charges [8-7-13]

 

Part 33: Why FCC won’t pass Appeals Court’s oral exam [9-2-13]

 

Part 34: 5 BIG Implications from Court Signals on Net Neutrality – A Special Report [9-13-13]

 

Part 35: Dial-up Rules for the Broadband Age? My Daily Caller Op-ed [11-6-13]

 

Part 36: Nattering Net Neutrality Nonsense Over AT&T's Sponsored Data Offering [1-6-14]

 

Part 37: Is Net Neutrality Trying to Mutate into an Economic Entitlement? [1-12-14]

 

Part 38: Why Professor Crawford Has Title II Reclassification All Wrong [1-16-14]

 

Part 39: Title II Reclassification Would Violate President's Executive Order [1-22-14]

 

Part 40: The Narrowing Net Neutrality Dispute [2-24-14]

 

Part 41: FCC’s Open Internet Order Do-over – Key Going Forward Takeaways [3-5-14]

 

Part 43: The Multi-speed Internet is Getting More Faster Speeds [4-28-14]

 

Part 44: Reality Check on the Electoral Politics of Net Neutrality [5-2-14]

 

Part 45: The “Aristechracy” Demands Consumers Subsidize Their Net Neutrality Free Lunch [5-8-14]

 

Part 46: Read AT&T’s Filing that Totally Debunks Title II Reclassification [5-9-14]

 

Part 47: Statement on FCC Open Internet NPRM [5-15-14]

 

Part 48: Net Neutrality Rhetoric: “Believe it or not!” [5-16-14]

 

Part 49: Top Ten Reasons Broadband Internet is not a Public Utility [5-20-14]

 

Part 50: Top Ten Reasons to Oppose Broadband Utility Regulation [5-28-14]

 

Part 51: Google’s Title II Utility Regulation Risks – An Open Letter to Investors [6-3-14]

 

Part 52:  Exposing Netflix’ Biggest Net Neutrality Deceptions [6-5-14]

 

Part 53: Silicon Valley Naïve on Broadband Regulation (3 min video) [6-15-14]

 

Part 54: FCC’s Netflix Internet Peering Inquiry – Top Ten Questions [6-17-14]

 

Part 55: Interconnection is Different for Internet than Railroads or Electricity [6-26-14]

 

Part 56: Top Ten Failures of FCC Title II Utility Regulation [7-7-14]

 

Part 57: NetCompetition Statement & Comments on FCC Open Internet Order Remand [7-11-14]

 

Part 58: MD Rules Uber is a Common Carrier – Will FCC Agree? [8-6-14]

 

Part 59: Internet Peering Doesn’t Need Fixing – NetComp CommActUpdate Submission [8-11-14]

 

Part 60: Why is Silicon Valley Rebranding/Redefining Net Neutrality?  [9-2-14]

 

Part 61: the FCC’s Redefinition of Broadband Competition [9-4-14]               

 

Part 62: NetCompetition Comments to FCC Opposing Title II Utility Reg of Broadband [9-9-14]

 

Part 63: De-competition De-competition De-competition [9-14-14]

 

Part 64: The Forgotten Consumer in the Fast Lane Net Neutrality Debate [9-18-14]

 

Part 65: FTC Implicitly Urges FCC to Not Reclassify Broadband as a Utility [9-23-14] 

 

Part 66: Evaluating the Title II Rainbow of Proposals for the FCC to Go Nuclear [9-29-14]

 

Part 67: Why Waxman’s FCC Internet Utility Regulation Plan Would Be Unlawful [10-5-14]

 

Part 68: Silicon Valley’s Biggest Internet Mistake [10-15-14]

 

Part 69: Will the FCC Break the Internet? [10-22-14]

 

Part 70: Net Neutrality Has Become an Industrial Policy [10-31-14]

 

Part 71:  The Federal Communications Congress? [11-8-14]

 

Part 72:  NetCompetition on President's Call for FCC Title II Internet Regulation [11-10-14]

 

Part 73:  Top Ten Adjectives to Describe FCC Title II Net Neutrality Regulation [11-11-14]