FCC Should Proceed With Care in Policing Interconnection Disputes, FSF's Lyons Says

FCC assertion of jurisdiction over interconnection agreements in its February net neutrality order was possibly the most surprising provision there and at odds with previous policies, said Free State Foundation scholar Daniel Lyons Tuesday in a paper released by the group. The order decided the FCC would develop interconnection jurisprudence “on a case-by-case basis in response to claims filed with the Commission under Section 208 alleging that broadband providers are engaged in unjust or unreasonable practices,” Lyons wrote. This is preferable to imposing prescriptive rules, yet leaves many questions unanswered, he said. “While the Commission has a role to play, it should approach any intervention with caution.” Interconnection markets are complex, competitive and evolving, and every consumer disruption isn't a market failure, said Lyons. The agency "should intervene when there is credible evidence of anticompetitive threats, but without distorting the natural evolution of interconnection markets or retarding the ability of networks to adapt to stimuli elsewhere in the Internet ecosystem,” Lyons wrote. A first step by the FCC should be developing a better understanding of interconnection markets and then it should intervene only when it needs to do so to protect consumers from “legitimate harm,” said the Boston College Law School associate professor.