More Reaction to FCC Broadband Classification Plan

[Source: Benton Foundation, by Kevin Taglang, May 6, 2010]

Gigi B. Sohn, president and co-founder of Public Knowledge: "We are generally very pleased with the FCC's statement this morning. We have said for months that the right path for the Commission to take would be to examine all the possibilities for the best way to protect consumers and guarantee the expansion of broadband. The method the FCC is expected to propose should be on the table, and we are glad it is. Having said that, we were not pleased to read that the Commission at the outset is foreclosing the possibility of requiring line sharing. As the Berkman report found, line sharing is a crucial method to ensuring the long-term vibrancy of the broadband market and to providing more choices for consumers."

Free Press Research Director S. Derek Turner: "By putting the FCC's regulatory framework back in harmony with congressional intent, Chairman Genachowski is reversing one of the worst deregulatory mistakes of the past decade. This is a step in the right direction that rejects the special interests of giant network owners. But he should be cautious about throwing out rules that would promote competition and affordability. The Chairman's plan appears to preemptively abandon important provisions of the law that serve consumers. The FCC's own data indicates that we have a duopoly problem today, and a looming cable monopoly problem ahead. The commission should not unnecessarily take away the tools Congress gave the FCC to promote competition and affordability in our advanced communications markets."

Tyrone Brown, President of Media Access Project: "This is a defining moment for Chairman Genachowski. He was the object of a massive lobbying campaign mounted by some of the most powerful corporations in the country, and he held his ground. The telephone and cable companies fought this outcome because they know that the alternative - stretching residual 'Title I' jurisdiction to protect consumers - is difficult if not impossible under the recent court decision in Comcast v. FCC. Employing 'Title II Lite' regulation is the right result because it is well within the Commission's discretion, and it will avoid years of pointless litigation over authority each and every time the Commission acts. It will enable policymakers to protect the public's free speech rights as well as insure that consumers receive timely and accurate information about the Internet services they purchase. This approach will help insure that the Internet continues to be an engine of economic growth and that it will promote democratic discourse in American society."

Comcast said in a statement that it would work with the commission to determine "if" there was a way to allow the FCC to take limited measure to preserve Internet openness and the broadband plan, but not "cast the kind of regulatory cloud that would chill investment and innovation by ISPs."