The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted to approve a rule reinstating net neutrality rules that could regulate broadband internet access as a telecommunications service.
Net neutrality rules were first imposed in 2015 under the Obama administration, but were repealed in 2017 after the Trump administration reversed control of the FCC and returned broadband internet to regulation as an information service.
After the Biden administration returned the agency to a majority of Democratic appointees, the agency is reinstating net neutrality rules under Title II of the Communications Act that allow it to regulate broadband.
Ahead of the FCC’s 3-2 vote, Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, a Biden appointee, said: Coming to broadband. This is good for consumers, good for public safety, and good for national security, which is why we are taking this action today under Title II of the Communications Act. ”
FCC Commissioner Brendan Kerr, a Republican appointee who opposed the bill, called the move “a power grab, plain and simple” in an interview with Fox Business ahead of the vote.
“My concern is that there is no reason for the government to go down this path of giving itself the power to second-guess all decisions about internet functionality,” Carr explained. “So my concern is that this is a power grab without any need or legitimacy, and it’s very difficult to predict what kind of damage will ultimately come from it. is.”
Kerr said many of the concerns expressed by net neutrality advocates in the lead-up to the 2017 repeal went unfulfilled, and proponents of reinstating the rule are reluctant to advance those arguments in the latest debate over broadband internet. He pointed out that he had been avoiding it. Regulation.
“A lot of people will remember the last time we had this net neutrality debate in 2017, and when we repealed the net neutrality rules that were in place, no one predicted the end of the Internet as we know it. People said we would get it one word at a time,” he explained. “And clearly, the exact opposite is happening: speeds have increased several times and prices have substantially decreased.”
“We don’t see a similar argument being touted this time around, because Americans’ own experience shows it’s not true,” he said. “So the FCC and activists went back to this sort of bag of Title II reasons, none of which withstood casual scrutiny.”
Carr noted that some have argued that national security objectives require net neutrality rules, but that “there is no gap in national security that needs to be filled with Title II. “It has a lot of authority in this area, and so do other agencies.”
Other discussions have focused on the need for broadband privacy rules, Kerr added. “Our sister agency, the Federal Trade Commission, already has privacy rules on the books that apply to broadband providers, and in fact, classifying broadband as Title II means Title II providers cannot be regulated by law. , which would strip the Federal Trade Commission of its jurisdiction.”
Kerr said that while consumers are unlikely to see any immediate changes in internet services, the return of net neutrality will have a chilling effect on industry investment in the sector, slowing the pace of innovation and product enhancements. He explained that there may be a delay.
“In the short term, I don’t think we’re going to see anything like an epiphany for something very different in terms of consumers’ everyday experience with the internet. In the long term, we need investment. “We’ve seen that these regulations create headwinds when it comes to billions of dollars,” he said. “In fact, when we developed Title II in 2015, we saw the first drop in investment outside of a recession, and that drop was reversed in 2017.”
Kerr went on to explain that he expects there will be legal challenges to the FCC’s reinstatement of net neutrality rules, which will likely result in the regulations being invalidated.
“The good news is that this decision will ultimately be overturned by the courts. “There is growing skepticism about this,” Kerr said.
“I am very confident that this matter will be struck down under the Principal Inquiry Act, whether it be in the Court of Appeals or ultimately in the Supreme Court, because this law does not give us clear authority. Masu.”
