Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

AT&T, Verizon, Cable Industry warn FCC against reclassification

The nation’s largest Internet service providers on Monday warned the Federal Communications Commission against any possible move that would put them more clearly under the agency’s jurisdiction, saying that doing so could deter their investments in broadband networks.

The comments from AT&T and Verizon Communications come as the FCC awaits a pivotal a federal appeals court decision that could undercut the agency’s authority over those companies’ Internet businesses. A ruling against the agency would likely derail FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s signature policy objectives, including open-Internet rules and the reform of an $8 billion rural telephone fund to bring broadband access to underserved parts of the country.

Public interest group Public Knowledge has urged the FCC to classify those Internet service providers alongside telephone services, which are firmly under the agency’s purview. Some analysts say that the agency would have to consider reclassification of those services in order to remain relevant as the Web becomes a primary vehicle for communication and entertainment.

But in a 14-page letter to the agency, AT&T and Verizon Communications were joined by trade groups CTIA-The Wireless Association and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association in arguing that such as move would be “extremist” and come with too many onerous rules for the fast-moving broadband services industry.

“The proposed regulatory about-face would be untenable as a legal matter, and, at a minimum, would plunge the industry into years of litigation and regulatory chaos,” the companies wrote.

An FCC spokeswoman declined to comment. Genachowksi’s senior adviser, Colin Crowell, has said the FCC believes it can still win its court challenge. The case stems from Comcast’s appeal of a 2007 ruling that it violated open-access guidelines that prohibited network providers from slowing or blocking select Internet sites.

The agency has argued that its authority over Internet service providers derives from its supervision of other communications services, such as cable television. In an oral hearing early last month, three judges grilled an FCC attorney over whether that “ancillary authority” over broadband Internet services was enough to rule against Comcast.

Crowell told The Post last month that if it didn’t win its case, the agency would have to consider other ways options to clarify its authority over ISPs, including a reclassification of those services. Advocates of such a change urge the agency to put ISPs under what is known as Title II common carrier services. Comcast, which is seeking the FCC’s approval for its merger with NBC Universal, didn’t sign onto the letter.

“"We’ll defer comment on reclassification until the D.C. Circuit decides our challenge to the actions of the previous FCC on due process grounds,” Comcast spokeswoman Sena Fitzmaurice said.

Broadband carriers said placing their services under Title II would be too restrictive.
“The commission should keep this Pandora’s Box of Title II classification nailed shut,” the companies said in their letters.

Consumer advocates argue the opposite. They say that previous FCC moves to ease regulation of broadband providers are now undermining the agency’s attempts to address communications problems in the Internet age.

“The same lobbyists who purport to want ‘Broadband for America’ are now telling the FCC that the agency should not engage in rulemaking that would achieve it,” said Ben Scott, policy director for Free Press, a public interest group. “The Commission must have the authority to promote universal access to affordable broadband.”

By Cecilia Kang  |  February 22, 2010; 7:38 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: FTC finds widespread data breaches through P2P applications
Next: FCC survey: people are passing on broadband because they consider it to be too expensive

Comments

Until we have serious competition in high-speed broadband service to almost every home, the current providers must be treated as monopolies (or duopolies) and managed as such. ATT was a regulated monopoly for 100 years and did not suffer any problems until it tried to destroy its first serious competitor, MCI, which caused it to be broken up.

The broadband providers are desperate to use their monopoly position to squeeze ever more money out of customers who are becoming more and more dependent on a broadband connection. The providers should be forced to separate high-speed access from all other services including telephone, and video.

We are already way behind the level of service in other countries, both in speeds provided and costs to the user. The providers want to maintain this cash cow and not be forced to provide serious high-speed access.

The FCC should move ahead briskly and, if necessary, get congressional legislation to support their actions.

Posted by: RCharles1 | February 23, 2010 4:37 AM | Report abuse

I'm of the same opinion as the post above, by RCharles1.

Posted by: Hattrik | February 23, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company