Can't say we didn't warn people on this one. Way back in February, we suggested that people pushing for net neutrality legislation were going to be disappointed after the telco lobbyists got done with it. The telcos came ready for battle, hiring hundreds of former government employees, including 18 former members of Congress to lobby on their behalf. Back in June, we noted that the telcos were privately saying they were okay with net neutrality rules, so long as they helped shape them. Then, last month, we noted that, contrary to its promises of transparency and openness, the FCC was meeting behind closed doors in secret with those telco lobbyists.
Well-connected telco-beat reporter Dave Burstein is now claiming that this past weekend, the top broadband lobbyists finalized the deal on their version of net neutrality, with part of the deal being a back-scratcher promise to dump a bunch of money into the campaign coffers of Democrats this upcoming election season:
This weekend, uber-lobbyists Cicconi (AT&T), Tauke (Verizon) and McSlarrow (Cable) are at the FCC to make a final deal on net neutrality, Arbogast and Kaut report. Ivan Seidenberg has put enormous pressure on the White House to intervene, and the rumor is that chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is telling agencies to go along. Seidenberg, who has been to the White House 16 times,made a major D.C. speech suggesting that the business community would throw their money and power against the Democrats in the campaign. NN was one of the specific points he demanded.
Under pressure like that, Julius has already agreed to almost everything Cicconi really wants, including loopholes wide enough to carry 350 TV channels. K & A say there is still some opposition so that nothing is final and that the public interest groups are ready to assail Julius. Meanwhile, Verizon and Google are discussing a separate peace that will make the FCC irrelevant.
This one is about power and money, not principle. The likely outcome is an agreement that will allow everyone to say noble things, will allow Julius to look himself in the mirror, and will essentially have no substance.
Now, as Burstein notes, this isn't "final," so things could change, but everyone should have seen this coming. Yes, network neutrality principles are important, but fighting for network neutrality and understanding how the political process works are two different things -- and it's been obvious for years that any attempt to enshrine net neutrality in the law would almost certainly be twisted by telco lobbyists.
I've said it plenty of times before: I don't think that the government should mandate net neutrality, but I'm getting pretty sick of ridiculously tortured explanations for why doing so is somehow illegal. There are plenty of legitimate reasons not to support network neutrality legislation, and I'm amazed that those against it keep trying to make really far out claims. The latest comes to us via Slashdot, which points us to an article claiming that the Fifth Amendment's eminent domain concept in the "takings clause," net neutrality would consist of an unconstitutional "taking." Sorry, I don't buy it. Not even close. You can read the full paper this is based on, written by Daniel Lyons from Boston College, but it the logic is just not there to support the claim.
The key problem is defining the internet as a a private broadband network, when in nearly every case, the broadband infrastructure involved includes tremendous use of government granted rights of ways and other government subsidies. If the telcos actually had built their network entirely on their own and negotiated privately with land owners for rights of way, they might have a point on this one. But they didn't and they don't.
However, the paper pretends that the internet is a purely private network:
The purpose of the "open internet" initiative is to prevent broadband providers from controlling which third-party content and application providers can use their networks to deliver information to end-user consumers. In essence, these third parties receive an unlimited, continuous right of access to broadband providers' private property. This access allows them to physically invade broadband networks with their electronic signals and permanently occupy portions of network capacity, all without having to pay the network provider for access. The effect is to appropriate the use of these private networks for the public's benefit, in the form of unfettered and nondiscriminatory access to the content and applications of the consumer's choosing.
Almost none of that accurately represents the situation. Content and service providers are not "invading" (especially not physically) anyone's private network at all. Nothing can be further from the truth. They have, instead, put themselves out on the open internet, and these service providers chose to connect to the open internet allowing their users to request such content. The content and service providers are doing nothing proactive, especially nothing that deserves the grossly misleading "invading" moniker.
Lyons then tries to twist this into a claim that it's like an easement on physical property. Again, this is simply untrue. The third parties are not proactively going onto anyone's network. They have set themselves up and connected directly to the open internet (via their own ISPs to which they pay handsomely for bandwidth) and the only times their content crosses those other networks is when the end users (i.e., the customers of these ISPs) reach out and request that the content be sent to their computer. That's how the open internet works. If the ISPs don't like it, they shouldn't have offered an internet service. To twist this and claim that the internet is somehow a "private network" of these ISPs and service providers who connect to the open internet are somehow "invading" that private network is the height of sophistry.
Effectively, you could take Lyons' twisted reasoning and apply it to nearly any government regulation. Taxes? Clearly an unjustified "taking" of someone's private property. Highway speed limits? An unjustified "taking" of the private owners' use of their own automobile. It's not hard. Try it with some other laws. Lyons tries to get around this by suggesting the key is the "right to exclude." But this is also wrong. It assumes that the ISP controls the wider internet, rather than its own network. Yes, a telco has every right to not connect to the internet. But once it does, it's expected to abide by the overall rules of the internet. If it wants to "exclude," then it doesn't need to hook up to the internet.
There are some other factual problems with the paper, such as suggesting that the telcos developed DSL in response to the success of cable modem services. That's not quite accurate. While DSL did lag cable slightly in implementation, cable was not widely deployed when DSL came on the market. The two were more or less developed in parallel.
I have no doubt that this argument will likely come into play in the upcoming fight over the FCC's attempt to reclassify broadband access, but it seems like an excessively weak claim that I hope no court would seriously consider. There are much more serious issues to focus on, including whether or not the sort of change is actually within the FCC's mandate.
While we're still worried that any "net neutrality" rules put in place by the government will contain so many loopholes for the telcos as to make them do more harm than good, it's nice to see that more and more people are calling the telcos on their bogus claim that net neutrality rules would mean that telcos would cut back on investment. Lots of us have debunked that claim before, but the telcos have tried to make the case that this is a big deal for Wall Street people. Eh... perhaps not so much. Broadband Reports notes that even the Wall Street analysts who are against net neutrality rules don't believe it will impact investment:
Net neutrality/reclassification opponent Thomas Seitz (Height Analytics and previously Barclay) today joined the parade of top analysts doubting the claims that Net Neutrality rules would produce a serious cutback in broadband investment. Washington is inundated with claims NN will clobber investment, but the carrier CFO are telling Wall Street it won't be a determining factor. Seitz joins John Hodulik of UBS (voted #1 telco analyst), Craig Moffett (voted #1 cable analyst) and Michael Rollins of Citigroup as well as several others who haven't gone on the record.
As we've seen over and over and over again, telcos invest when there's competition in the market. When competition goes away, that's when they cut back. If the focus is really on encouraging investment in network infrastructure, then the focus should be on encouraging more competition in the marketplace -- which is exactly what the telcos don't want. They like their monopoly rents. They like not having to invest as much in infrastructure. It's great that more and more people are calling them on this bogus claim.
As much as we believe in the importance of a neutral network, we've pointed out over and over again that the last thing people should want is for specific net neutrality rules to be written by the government. For a while now, we've warned that once the lobbyists took over, people supporting net neutrality wouldn't like the results. And, of course, everything has been playing out following just that script. The telcos hired a ton of high-power lobbyists to cover net neutrality, including eighteen former members of Congress. And, despite arguing for years that net neutrality was evil, the telcos "miraculously" admitted last month they "might agree" to regulations... just as long as they got to write the details
As important as the concept of a neutral network might be, what comes out of this sausage making process is going to favor the very companies net neutrality regulations are supposed to keep in line.
Up in Canada, it seems that there's a constant push to expand copyright levies (the "you must be a criminal tax") to nearly everything from iPods to ISPs, despite the fact that many people recognize what a joke the levies have become. After failing to get it expanded to cover iPods, supporters of the levy pushed for ISPs to have to pay the levy, because people using their internet connection might possibly access content. Thankfully, a Canadian appeals court pointed out that access to broadcasts of content is not the same thing as broadcasting it and rejected adding the "you must be a criminal" tax to internet access.
Of course, there is one rather interesting part of the ruling, which is that the court notes that one of the reasons for this ruling is that ISPs are effectively "content neutral." If they were to stop that (i.e., and break net neutrality concepts), they could open themselves up to having this tax come back:
In providing access to "broadcasting", ISPs do not transmit programs. As such, they are not "broadcasting" and therefore they do not come within the definition of "broadcasting undertaking". In so holding, I wish to reiterate as was done in CAIP that this conclusion is based on the content-neutral role of ISPs and would have to be reassessed if this role should change
This is notable because, as in the US, there has been talk among ISPs of breaking basic net neutrality concepts. Perhaps this ruling will get them to think twice.
Ryan Single has an excellent piece at Wired that details how incredibly misleading telcos are being in claiming that the FCC's attempt to reclassify broadband access will lead to less "innovation." He highlights how far behind other countries the US has fallen, and how hard the telcos seem to work at not competing and not investing in innovation. Basically, Singel points out what many of us have pointed out all along. All of this posturing by telcos is about lowering their own costs (i.e., not investing) and squeezing more money out of customers, in an attempt to please Wall Street:
The dirty secret of ISPs is that even as broadband usage on their networks continues to increase 30 to 40 percent a year, their annual costs for shipping data onto and off the net's main pipes continues to fall.
The problem isn't the cost of shipping data.
The problem is that the large ISPs answer to Wall Street and instead of planning and investing for abundance, they prefer to spend their time thinking of ways to extract more money from customers without having to invest significantly in future-proof infrastructure.
He does note that Verizon may be the exception, but as we recently pointed out, with CEO Ivan Seidenberg on his way out, the company has shifted gears and is pulling back heavily on investing in new infrastructure. Seidenberg has long fought Wall Street, pointing out that putting down fiber was the best long-term bet, but the short-term thinkers on Wall Street didn't want to hear about high capital expenditure that would cost a lot initially, but not pay off until later. And, now, without Seidenberg leading the charge, Verizon is going back to not wiring up fiber.
Singel highlights how all of the "innovation" that seems to come out of the telcos isn't consumer focused at all. Nearly all of it is about limiting consumers with artificial rules and barriers to try to squeeze more money out of them:
In the last couple of years, ISPs "innovated" by changing how they handle users who type in a URL that doesn't exist. Under net protocols, the ISP's DNS servers are supposed to report an error code to your browser in those circumstances. Instead, ISPs are now serving up pages with ads, sometimes in ways that introduce huge security risks.
As a reaction, Google set up a fast, ad-free DNS service. And if you want to see what real innovation in DNS looks like, take a look at OpenDNS, which has built fraud protection, security measures and optional web content filtering into its robust DNS service.
ISPs have also long insisted on customers using "installation" software that did nothing but drive customers onto ISPs' web properties to get ad dollars; tried to sell -- for a monthly fee -- wireless home network capability you could set up easily with a $50 router (and then blame service problems on any home wireless networks you didn't buy from them); and even hijack address-bar searches that might otherwise, per the browser settings, use an actually useful search engine like Google.
ISPs also recently dipped their toes into another innovation: Selling access to everything their customers do online in order to build profiles on them and secretly insert targeted ads into other company's web pages.
From there, he covers just how much effort the telcos put into regulatory efforts to block competition in the face of overwhelming consumer demand:
It's literally not in telecom executives' best interest to invest in broadband and solid networks.
That's why you get companies like Time Warner trying to squeeze customers into limits on the amount of data they can use -- not because bandwidth is expensive -- but because building a real network is. It's far better, in their minds and for the stock price, to focus on bleeding as much from their current customers using self-serving policies instead of gaining loyalty by making networks that are generous, quick and reliable.
When towns get tired of begging for fast internet -- only to be told it doesn't make financial sense for telecoms, they sometimes decide to build their own fiber networks.
And then telecoms sue the cities -- as they did in the case of Monticello, Minneapolis, and run to state legislators to write laws outlawing citizens from organizing their own networks as Time Warner Cable did in the case of Wilson, North Caroline, which set up its own fiber network known as Greenlight.
All of this is a pretty accurate description of what's actually happening. The one point where I disagree with the article is Singel's assertion that what the FCC is doing in response to this makes sense. While I agree it's not nearly as big a deal as the telcos are making it out to be, I still think that supporters of the FCC's move are underestimating what will result, and what kind of loopholes the telcos will gleefully make sure are present. With the recent reports coming out, saying that the telcos are willing to "agree" to legislation on this topic, combined with the fact that they've hired up a ton of ex-high level government officials to help craft any rules, suggests that what comes out in the end will be a lot more "friendly" to the type of short-term Wall Street-driven "innovation" that the telcos want.
The telcos, mainly AT&T (at the time, it was still SBC) and Verizon, were really the companies that kicked off the whole "net neutrality" craze a few years back, by making totally ridiculous claims about how online services should double pay for bandwidth already paid for by users. Since then, they've fought as hard as possible against any sort of "net neutrality" legislation. However, with the FCC deciding to try to reclassify internet access and gain (somewhat limited) regulatory power over certain aspects of broadband, suddenly reports are coming out that these telcos might be willing to agree to legislation on net neutrality.
It's not too hard to read between the lines here. What it means is that they've now crafted legislation that will look like net neutrality regulation, but will have so many loopholes or exceptions, that it does nothing of the sort. This has always been my fear around net neutrality legislation. The telcos have very good lobbyists, and once they got done with the law, it would almost certainly do the exact opposite of what the public was being told. Once you open up this kind of regulatory pandora's box, you're just asking for regulatory capture, where the actual text of the bill is tailored to the industry's interests.
slacker525600 was the first of a whole bunch of you pointing us to Ars Technica's writeup up of a so-called "study" of potential job losses from the FCC's decision to reclassify broadband. The writeup is done by Matthew Lasar, who's usually pretty good to cut through ridiculous claims, but doesn't seem to challenge this one at all. The report is officially from New York Law School's Advanced Communications Law & Policy Institute, but it was written by Bret Swanson. Remember him? He's a well known propagandist for the telco industry. He's not a "researcher." He's the guy who coined the concept of the "exaflood" and when that was totally debunked, renamed it the "exacloud." He's been AT&T's go to guy for pure anti-net neutrality propaganda, and he seems to relish in totally making stuff up.
A few months back, he made some similar news by claiming numbers for "job losses" if net neutrality were legislated, but his methodology wasn't just suspect, it was stupid. He literally looked at the number of people employed by companies who filed anti-net neutrality filings with the FCC and compared it to the number of people employed by companies who filed pro-net neutrality filings with the FCC. I'm not joking;
To gauge the possible fallout of new Net Neutrality regulation, we looked at what Internet industry companies were saying. The FCC received an astonishing 100,000 individual comments on its Net Neutrality proposal and some 15,000 official filings from companies, trade associations, academics, and think tanks. Excluding the associations, academics, and individuals, we analyzed the company comments and discerned support for or opposition to Net Neutrality. We then tabulated the number of workers employed by these Supporters and Skeptics and found a huge disparity.
Net Neutrality Supporters directly employ 148,936 workers. But Net Neutrality Skeptics employ 1,440,021, almost 10 times as many.
So, just knowing the report was written by him pretty much tosses all credibility out the window. However, we can hope and pray that perhaps he's changed and actually has done some real research. Let's look at the actual report (pdf).
It starts off with a nice whopper of an assumption:
Indeed, many estimate that, in the absence of the FCC's network
neutrality proposals, investment and job growth will continue apace across the sector. This
paper supports estimates that broadband service providers will commit at least $30 billion
annually in capital expenditures on broadband alone between 2010 and 2015, resulting in
the creation or sustainment of 509,000 jobs.
Bad assumption, Bret. First of all, there hasn't been a "light regulatory regime." There's been a very heavy one: involving all sorts of subsidies to the telcos and efforts to keep competitors out of the market. And, because of that lack of competition, the big telcos Verizon and AT&T have already slowed their investment, and it happened well before any attempt by the FCC to reclassify broadband. They slowed it because they're not facing any serious competition in many regions, so there's little reason to upgrade the network. Oh, and as for that claim about how this would create or sustain 500,000 new jobs. Tell that to folks the telcos are laying off.
Conversely, decreased investments by broadband service providers will hinder capital
expenditures by others in the ecosystem, particularly those at the edge. The analyses in this paper
indicate that the imposition of network neutrality rules could have devastating impacts across the
ecosystem between 2010 and 2015.
Actually, it appears the lack of competition, driven in part by propaganda from the likes of Swanson, has already created that "devastating" situation, with the telcos cutting back their investment, since they don't have to worry about losing customers.
Okay, so here's the fun section:
A 10 percent decrease in investment by wireline and wireless broadband
service providers, coupled with likely spillover effects, could result in the loss
of 502,000 jobs across the entire ecosystem and would have a negative
impact on U.S. GDP on the order of approximately $62 billion per year.
A 20 percent decrease in investment by wireline and wireless broadband
service providers, coupled with likely spillover effects, could result in the loss
of 553,000 jobs across the entire ecosystem and nearly $72 billion in GDP
losses per year.
A 30 percent decrease in investment by wireline and wireless broadband
service providers, coupled with likely spillover effects, could result in the loss
of 604,000 jobs across the entire ecosystem and over $80 billion in GDP
losses per year.
Because the FCC's network neutrality proposals could foreclose even larger
investments than presumed in the paper's baseline scenario, the number of
jobs lost or foregone in the ecosystem could be even greater, stretching
toward 700,000.
Remember, the telcos have already been cutting back their investment and it has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality, but with the fact that they don't need to invest as much in certain areas because there's no serious competition in those areas. They did spend a lot on upgrades in competitive markets, even though there was all of the "uncertainty" around net neutrality that remains today.
Also, notice the language choices in the numbers above, specifically 'likely spillover effects." This is a favorite trick of industry propagandists looking to make "loss" numbers look good. These "spillover effects" are what we usually call ripple effects. They're a form of double, triple or quadruple counting the same "losses" as they ripple through the economy. And, they only look at the ripple going in one direction.
So, for example, Swanson and others friends of AT&T and Verizon like to claim that net neutrality will cause them to cut back on investment due to "uncertainty." But, if that were actually true (and I don't for a second believe it is), then wouldn't it also mean that this new "certainty" in a free and open internet that can't have certain services discriminated against or double charged, will also feel a lot more free to invest themselves? I can't see how Swanson can argue that the impact only goes in one direction, and totally ignore the economic impacts in the other direction.
Oh, and "uncertainty" is really just a code word for "competition" of course, which most of us in the capitalist world tend to think of as a good thing for innovation.
Then you look at the actual methodology for how Bret calculates his numbers of job losses, and it's hard not to hold back serious laughter. He takes wild guesses about massive potential job growth based on absolutely nothing, and then similarly takes a wild guess on what the job growth would be if the telcos didn't invest as much as in his already ridiculous extrapolation. And he blames it all on net neutrality. In other words, it's a made up number, derived from a made up number, built off of a laughable premise, ignoring the reality of what's happening today.
This was pretty predictable, but it's still unfortunate that it's happening. We've complained in the past that both sides on the net neutrality debate are exaggerating and making absolutely ridiculous arguments, and even though I agree that putting net neutrality in the law in some manner is a bad, bad idea, I have to admit that the arguments by most of those against such rules is so ridiculous that it makes me wonder they're thinking. There were the outright lies -- such as the ridiculous claim that Google gets its bandwidth for free (to which I asked if the lobbyist who made that statement would pay Google's broadband bill -- and he never responded). Then there are the claims that net neutrality would mean the end of the internet or no more iPhones, both of which are ridiculous hyperbole that have no basis in truth.
Given that there actually are perfectly good arguments against regulations on this issue without resorting to such ridiculous lies, I actually think that such claims really hurt the case of those who are worried about the unintended consequences of opening up the internet to regulation.
However, with the FCC's recent decision to sorta, kinda, partially reclassify broadband access, it seems like the lobbyists, sock puppets and shills are going into overdrive, and it's not helping anyone. In fact, part of the mess is that everyone now is looking for big "gotchas" on either side. For example, the website Think Progress got its hands on a PowerPoint apparently coordinating the ridiculously over-the-top anti-net-neutrality campaign, which they're apparently trying to rebrand "net brutality."
The whole thing reads like what you'd expect from a lobbying effort... but it turns out that it was just a student project, though, the attention given it by Think Progress may have just catapulted it into something more. That said, the project itself is filled with questionable activities, where they even admit that the whole goal is to create the impression that it's a grass roots effort. And, not surprisingly, the project's blog links to some highly questionable sources that have been shown to be sock puppetry and astroturfing in the past.
Of course, the other side isn't immune to questionable activities either. It didn't take long for the press to realize that a letter that was being passed around by Rep. Jay Inslee in support of the FCC's move had metadata indicating it was actually written by the policy director of Free Press, a group that has been ferociously pushing for net neutrality regulations for quite some time. Ridiculously, Inslee is trying to pretend that the document wasn't written by Free Press by claiming a staffer had just typed over a Word doc sent by Free Press:
Inslee's office told Hillicon Valley on Tuesday that Scott did not, in fact, draft the letter on behalf of the congressman. Rather, as Inslee's staff scrambled to put out something last week in support of the FCC's goals, it consulted old documents and industry talking points for ideas. A staff member ultimately typed the new letter on top of the Word document that Free Press previously sent Inslee -- the date of which was May 7 -- meaning the meta-data still reflected Scott as its author.
"Yep, that's it, in our haste we typed over a word document with someone else's meta tag," said communications director Robert Kellar. "There is no plot and we created the letter."
I mean, it even sounds like Kellar knows he's not fooling anyone with the "Yep, that's it" part of the statement. It's about this far away from "Yeah... that's the ticket..."
Either way, as we predicted, the whole thing is becoming a political food fight being manhandled by lobbyists and special interests, with little regard for the deeper, important, underlying issues. Even when moves are being made by people outside of the beltway, it's being dissected for the driving forces behind it, rather than what actually makes sense. What comes out in the end is going to be shaped by those lobbyists and special interests. And that's my big fear with all of this. The end result isn't going to have anything to do with actually looking at what's best for the internet or the American people, but who can game the system better and turn this into a hotter political football.
Well, well. Earlier this week I had agreed to swing by the TechCrunch offices to be on a video panel discussing net neutrality, which was supposed to air at some point in the future. As I was out at lunch on my way to TechCrunch, the Wall Street Journal broke the news that (contrary to reports from the Washington Post earlier in the week), that FCC boss Julius Genachowski had decided to reclassify parts of broadband internet access as a Title II service, which would allow the FCC to regulate it. I found this out as I walked into the studio right before filming, so didn't have all the details, but if you'd like to see the discussion, here it is:
The panel was moderated by Andrew Keen, and included Gigi Sohn from Public Knowledge, Richard Bennett from ITIF, Larry Downes from Stanford and myself. With so many people, and not much time, I didn't get a chance to say much other than that this whole thing is a bit of a red herring, and that the real issue, that the FCC should be focused on, is making sure there's real competition in the broadband arena -- because if there were real competition, net neutrality wouldn't even be a discussion point (because, if any firm broke it, customers would go elsewhere quickly). However, the discussion itself is quite worthwhile, mainly for the viewpoints of the other three panelists.
While Gigi characterizes the panel as three against one, I don't think that's quite fair. I'm sympathetic to her argument on the importance of this. I think that maintaining a "neutral" internet, or one where end-to-end principles are maintained, is important. I just think that it can be done without the FCC stepping in, and that having the FCC make this move now could very well open the door to problematic decisions down the road. No matter how good the principles are that Genachowski wants to lay out (and I think they're pretty good), this opens the door to the FCC making much worse decisions in the future. And, in the meantime, we'll see all sorts of work by lobbyists and special interests to either neuter the rules or slip in enough exemptions to make the whole thing somewhat meaningless, and just another regulatory nightmare. Gigi's optimistic that this won't happen. I'm not convinced.
Meanwhile, if you want a preview of exactly what the legal arguments are that will be filed in response to this decision, well, watch the exchange between Larry and Gigi over whether or not the FCC can even do what it's proposing to do. I honestly don't know who is right -- and both make compelling cases for their arguments. In the end, a judge (or perhaps nine Supreme Court justices) will make the final call. Larry has laid out why he doesn't think the FCC can win in more detail -- and I'm sure we'll see more from Gigi as well.
Either way, the one thing that is certain is that this will be tied up in court for many years, and I stand by my assertion that for the next few years this is going to be pretty meaningless for consumers. I disagree with Richard Bennett that this will impact investment in networks -- and not because "investment ignores regulation" (a phrase he used which I've never heard anyone utter and which makes no sense to me), but because he's wrong that this creates any more uncertainty than there was before. There's been a discussion over net neutrality for more than half a decade and threats to move the ball back and forth all of these years. There's been plenty of uncertainty all along. The only reason that there would be a decline in investment in broadband is if the major providers get fat and happy and realize there's no competitive pressure for them to continue upgrading.
Also, while I agree with Richard that the internet tends to "regulate itself" to prevent anything really egregious from happening, he's being a bit disingenuous in suggesting that it's consumer advocates who came up with the idea that telcos would slow down or block certain websites. That came from former SBC/AT&T (and now GM) CEO Ed Whitacre, who blatantly said that was the plan. However he is right that AT&T's inability to follow through has mostly been due to loud public outcries against it.
Finally, to Gigi's point that this is necessary so that there's someone looking out for consumers and mandating transparency... I still have to go back to the point that those things are not the job of the FCC, but of the FTC, who already has the power to protect consumers and to respond to actions like what Comcast did with BitTorrent, in that Comcast was selling consumers one thing and providing them with something else.
Of course, with all of that out of the way concerning the debate... what about what the FCC is actually going to do. After the WSJ article came out, the FCC put out a statement claiming that its plan -- which will be "outlined" today -- would not, in fact, be the so-called "nuclear option" of reclassifiyng broadband as a telecommunications service, but a magical "third way":
"The Chairman will outline a "third way" approach between a weak Title I and a needlessly burdensome Title II approach," says the statement. "It would 1) apply to broadband transmission service only the small handful of Title II provisions that, prior to the Comcast decision, were widely believed to be within the Commission's purview, and 2) would have broad up-front forbearance and meaningful boundaries to guard against regulatory overreach."
As Broadband Reports notes, this is all way too ambiguous. What everyone is saying is that this will apply to internet access, but not to internet providers -- whatever that means. Ambiguity in this situation is not good, because (yet again) it introduces all sorts of wiggle room for lobbyists to move things around. But this has become the way things seem to work in the Genachowski FCC, with vague plans announced that try to thread the needle between various sides, without ever taking a very firm stand on anything, but making sure not to piss off anyone either. It's why the big broadband plan seems to have so few specifics. It's as if Genachowski is afraid to take a real stand on anything. Even reading the FCC description of this move has him trying to explain why this isn't really a big deal, saying that it simply seeks to confirm what people felt was true before the Comcast ruling.
We'll see what the final announcement is -- and this is definitely a case where the devil is going to be hiding deep in the details -- but either way, you can rest assured that legal briefs are being written as we speak (if they haven't been written already), and this is all going to be in court for a long, long time before any of it really matters. The video above started out with the question of "what is network neutrality," and for the next few years, it's basically going to be gridlock in the court system.
