Internet Services Providers (ISPs) are denouncing Pres. Obama’s plan to have the FCC turn the Internet into a utility under Title II of an arcane 1934 communications law passed when rotary phones were cutting-edge technology.
In its comments to the FCC on Obama’s “Net Neutrality” plan, the 800-member Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA) says that Title II is irrelevant to broadband:
"Title II includes a host of arcane provisions that have nothing to do with broadband service, including rules regarding interlocking directorates, valuation of carrier property, uniform systems of accounts and depreciation charts, telephone operator service, Bell Operating Company entry into interLATA services, manufacturing of telecommunication equipment and customer premises equipment, and electronic publishing."
Alex Phillips, Vice President and FCC Committee Chair of WISPA, tells MRCTV that Obama’s plan to regulate the internet would devastate small businesses and deprive rural areas of broadband access:
“From the perspective of WISPA and its members, Title II regulation of the internet would put an undue and unnecessary burden on small businesses that are currently providing broadband internet to rural Americans. WISPA members are small businesses and so do not have the means to force content providers to pay for prioritization, nor do we have the means to pay for the increased disclosure and reporting burdens that the could be imposed Because of this we do favor some Net Neutrality protections against the large companies who now want to gain extra profit at the expense of a free and open Internet as it was established.
“Enforcement of Title II regulations will slow broadband proliferation in Rural America as well as chill investment. Even if the FCC decided to forbear from certain Title II requirements, it would take years of FCC proceedings and (likely) court cases to sort it out. And the uncertainty that comes with that will be a further deterrent to investment. Taken together, WISPA does not see much good in a Title II regulatory regime. We favor regulation under Section 706, which is designed to encourage broadband deployment to all Americans in a reasonable and timely manner. That’s what we are about.”
In its FCC filing, WISPA warned that the “onerous” regulations of Obama’s “Net Neutrality” Internet takeover would be “especially ruinous” for small businesses:
“The potential for onerous and possibly conflicting state common carrier regulations will be especially ruinous for small broadband providers and severely diminish investment and innovations in broadband service in rural areas.
“Thus, it is clear that Title II regulations will discourage innovation and investments in new broadband infrastructure and services, harm WISPs and other small broadband providers, and result in increased costs and decreased access for consumers without actually preserving the open Internet. For these reasons, WISPA urges the Commission to refrain from reclassifying broadband Internet access service as a ‘telecommunications service’ regulated under Title II of the Communications Act.”
“WISPA also reiterates its position, supported by many other commenters, that Title II would be an improper and onerous regulatory device for open Internet rules.”
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also “strongly opposes” the Title II takeover. Chamber Vice President for Government Affairs R. Bruce Josten says the Obama plan would employ an obsolete law to throw the industry into chaos:
“The U.S. Chamber of Commerce strongly opposes President Obama’s call for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to impose antiquated Title II regulations on broadband and reverse two decades of bi-partisan support for a lightly-regulated Internet. As an independent agency, the FCC answers to Congress—not the administration. The Chamber urges the FCC to exercise its independent judgment.
“Title II—which has its origins in 1880s railroad regulation and was originally enacted as part of the Communications Act of 1934 when rotary dial telephones were considered modern technology—should not be imposed on broadband networks. Reversing decisions that date back to the Clinton administration would plunge the industry into years of litigation and cause extreme regulatory and market uncertainty.”