Biden’s FCC commissioner aims to tighten internet regulation through backdoors

Written by Johnny Campis

of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) may attempt to use Section 706provisions. Telecommunications Act 1996, imposing heavy-handed and unnecessary Title II regulations on the Internet. However, a recent study argues that the FCC cannot invoke Section 706 to support its plan to reinstate Title II regulations for providers because this maneuver does not remove barriers to entry into the broadband market. are doing.

Test by Phoenix Advanced Law, Economics and Public Policy Research Center say it with Section 706Congress directed the FCC to remove barriers that impede the deployment of broadband to unserved areas in a reasonable and timely manner. chief economist george ford It states that this language is clear in that it “does not justify the use of Section 706 for any other purpose.”

Ford states that public rulemaking notices Protecting and securing the open internet The December 2023 legislative changes make no claim that Title II regulations would remove such barriers, and “it would be nearly impossible to craft a plausible argument that they would.”

“Indeed, the European Commission’s justification for the Title II regulation is to reduce broadband providers’ freedom in maximizing their profits, so this regulation is at best neutral and could be used in unserved areas. “will likely pose a barrier to network deployment,” Ford wrote.

When the FCC first introduced “net neutrality” Chairman Tom Wheeler In 2015, the Commission invoked Section 706. Subsequently, the 2017 Open Internet Order under former Commissioner Ajit Pai eliminated Title II regulations for providers.

In his research, Ford conducted a counterfactual analysis of FCC broadband data that showed that not only did the implementation of Title II rules from 2015 to 2017 not improve broadband deployment in unserved areas, but it also made progress. I discovered that it may have been delayed.

“Thus, the Title II regulations do not accomplish the sole purpose of Section 706, and there is no reason to believe that the second effort will have any further effect,” Ford wrote.

Section 706 also tasks government leaders with implementing “measures to promote competition in regional telecommunications markets.” Regulating local markets is counterproductive.

Ford argued that those in power should have an “honest conversation” about whether the goals of Section 706, part of the law that is now nearly 30 years old, are currently being met. Most Americans now have access to broadband, and vast amounts of state and federal funding are being spent to close the gap. This includes a whopping $42.5 billion. broadband, equity, access, deployment (bead) program.

“If ‘every American’ has access to quality broadband service, there is no economic basis for the Commission to invoke Section 706,” Ford wrote.

In comments to the FCC in its Order on Protecting and Securing an Open Internet, the Taxpayer Protection Alliance (TPA) stated that the FCC has not made a convincing case for why this rule is needed. He called the order a “misguided Title II quest.” TPA argued that evidence shows that, in fact, broadband adoption occurred more quickly when the threat of increased regulation was not preoccupying providers.

The committee would be better off getting Congress to enact bipartisan rules to fix this problem that would hopefully encourage investment, foster innovation, and benefit American consumers and taxpayers.

Johnny Kampis is Telecommunications Policy Director at the Taxpayer Protection Alliance.

–