Changing How Broadband is Classified Would Be Huge Mistake, Business Groups Warn

The National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and TechAmerica called on the FCC not to rush to reclassify broadband as a Title II service in the wake of the Comcast decision. Each said it planned to file reply comments on the net neutrality proceeding to the FCC shortly before the deadline late Monday. Several groups put out statements to get their positions heard ahead of a likely deluge of filings. The FCC said it received more than 100,000 comments in its first comment round (CD Jan 19 p1).

NAM and TechAmerica aren’t in lock step, executives said Monday on a call with reporters. But they and the Chamber agree that the FCC should take its time looking at whether to reclassify broadband. “Our ask of the commission is, ‘Don’t rush to action based on the decision that was made in the Comcast case,'” said Josh Lamel, senior vice president of TechAmerica. “We've seen a lot of kind of quick reaction to this from a lot of parties, and I think everybody needs to take a step back.”

"We believe that a major factor in the success of the Internet and manufacturers being able to take advantage of that success has been government’s light regulatory approach,” said Marc-Anthony Signorino, NAM director of technology policy. “We believe there’s a distinct need for reflection. At this time, we believe that the commission should refrain from moving forward with this proceeding absent a clear grant of congressional authority."

Title II was intended for regulated phone service, not broadband, said Jason Goldman, the Chamber’s counsel for telecommunications and e-commerce. “It’s not appropriate for the broadband era.”

Lamel said TechAmerica’s membership is diverse and the members don’t agree on all net neutrality questions. “It would be much easier for us to sit this one out,” he said. “It’s a lot of work for us to get to some form of a coordinated position. What’s driving this internally is the industry as a whole does care and does know that we at least need to talk about important things like network management, network security, deployment of networks, … transparency.” Lamel said he wasn’t certain whether shifting how broadband is regulated would survive legal challenge. “The devil is in the details,” he said. “It depends on what they do and how they do it,” meaning the FCC.

Net neutrality is a “huge” issue for many NAM members, Signorino said. “It’s incredible how many of our members have stepped forward with concerns about the open Internet proceeding,” he said. “We have companies that are network managers. We have companies that make the fiber. We have companies that dig the trenches. We have companies that make tools that dig the trenches.” Other companies care because they rely heavily on having high-speed broadband available, Signorino said. “Their concerns are that if there are rules that prevent network manufacturers from building out the networks on their own and if there are arbitrary rules that treat wireless the same as wireline … there’s going to be disincentives to expansion,” he said.

Free Press said its replies will say the FCC needs to impose rules. Recent allegations that RCN discriminated against peer-to-peer traffic (CD April 22 p2) and that Windstream used deep-packet inspection tools to “hijack” search queries about its subscribers (CD April 6 p8) put the lie to contentions that a light-handed approach will do, the group said. “Though the industry continues to trot out their hackneyed ’solution in search of a problem’ rhetoric, in recent weeks two more broadband service providers were exposed for violating open Internet principles,” said Free Press Research Director Derek Turner. “It’s clear that violations of the open Internet are ongoing and kept secret from consumers. If the FCC fails to establish basic rules of the road, we can expect much more of the same from broadband providers."

Public Knowledge said in reply comments that the FCC can impose net neutrality rules regardless of the Comcast decision. It would be “at best challenging and at worst reckless” for the FCC to base regulatory policy on the legal framework that was largely struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the Comcast case, the group said. But the commission has choices, Public Knowledge said. “The Commission can either reclassify all broadband Internet access services as Title II telecommunications services, or recognize that the underlying transmission components of broadband Internet access services are telecommunications services offered to customers separately,” the group said. “In either case, the existing doctrines and enforcement mechanisms surrounding Sections 201 and 202 of the Communications Act can serve as a basis for implementing the proposed rules.”