The Federal Communications Commission is set to begin a move to regulate the Internet.

According to CNSNews.com, by a “3-2 party-line vote on Thursday at the FCC,” the agency “began the formal process of reclassifying the Internet as a telecommunications service instead of an information service — it’s current classification.”

Currently, as an information service, the FCC can exercise only “ancillary” authority, which does not allow it to regulate the Internet directly. If the Internet is reclassified, the agency would gain greater regulatory control.

For the FCC, the reclassification effort has become necessary due to a setback in the courts. In 2007, subscribers to Comcast’s broadband service found that the company was blocking some Internet traffic related to peer-to-peer file sharing. Comcast throttled the access because it claimed that such network activity consumed too much bandwidth. Despite its lack of direct authority, the agency sought to control Comcast’s network management policy after two non-profit “advocacy” organizations — Free Press and Public Knowledge — filed a complaint.

Probably unbeknownst to Comcast, the company had fallen afoul of an organization with an animosity toward free enterprise, and thus to corporately controlled, privately owned assets. The organization Free Press was co-founded by University of Illinois professor Robert W. McChesney. From 2000 to 2004, McChesney served as editor of the Marxist/socialist journal Monthly Review, published in New York City. Monthly Review was founded in 1949 to speak “for socialism and against U.S. imperialism.”

This is no idle matter — McChesney views the media as a battleground in the socialist revolution. In a revised version of chapter seven of his book The Problem of the Media: U.S. Communication Politics in the Twenty-First Century, published online by Monthly Review, he writes: “Progressives need to work on challenging the corporate domination of media as part of the broader struggle for social justice. If changing media is left until ‘after the revolution,’ there will be no revolution, not to mention fewer chances for social reform.”

A chance to “change the media” apparently existed in the case of Comcast’s management of its network access. But the case finally ended up in the courts, where it found its way to the federal D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in April that the FCC could not regulate Comcast’s network management policies. The court found that the FCC “has no express statutory authority” over an Internet service provider’s network management practices.”

That came as a blow to the FCC. In its press release announcing that the agency would begin to “seek best legal framework for broadband Internet access,” the agency complained that the “recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit cast doubt on prior understandings about the FCC’s ability to ensure fair competition.” FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski put it more bluntly. The Court’s findings, he said in a statement, amounted to an “unwelcome decision” and “a curveball.” The setback was also viewed unfavorably by FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, “a self-described New Dealer,” according to McChesney who had already tangled with Comcast earlier in the decade when he “was the one vote against approving Comcast’s takeover of AT&T’s cable systems in 2002.” In other words, Copps was familiar with using the power of government to thwart free enterprise.

In this case, Copps views the matter as a threat to that power. In his statement on the FCC’s plan to reclassify the Internet, he complained that original classification had been made against his wishes. In 2002, he noted “over the strong dissents of Commissioner Adelstein and me, the Commission issued a Declaratory Ruling that moved cable modem services away from any real oversight by classifying them as unregulated ‘information’ services.”

Such obnoxious lack of regulation must be brought to an end, he says. Private enterprise, he argues, can’t be trusted. After all, “we see what price can be paid when critical industries operate with unfettered control and without reasonable and meaningful oversight.” Indeed, he continues, “look no further than the banking industry’s role in precipitating the recent financial meltdown or turn on your TV and watch what is taking place right now in the Gulf of Mexico.”

Never mind that neither of those situations actually support his argument, with the oil spill being purely an accident, and the economic meltdown actually attributable to government regulation of, and intervention, in the economy.

Facts, however, are optional. What really matters is the power of the FCC: “We need to reclaim our authority,” Copps concluded.

Still, CNSNews.com notes that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 says explicitly that “it is the policy of the United States ... to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation.”

As to this, the FCC promises they can be trusted: “The FCC claims it will exercise ‘forbearance,’ a regulatory doctrine whereby the government promises not use its regulatory authority in most cases,” reports CNSNews.com.

This will be done through what Chairman Genachowski calls the Third Way approach, “developed as a response that rejects both the extreme of applying extensive legacy phone regulation to broadband, and also rejects the extreme of eliminating FCC oversight of broadband.”

In supposedly thus “restoring balance to the Force,” Genachowski promises a return to the “status quo light-touch framework that existed prior to the court case.”

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (13)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Ron Bedell said:

... The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) was established by the Communications Act of 1934 (June 19, 1934) during Presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was established as an independent agency of the United States Government. The majority of its commissioners are appointed by the current President. The FCC has an annual budget of more than $352 million. The FCC replaced the Federal Radio Communication. May I please ask the obvious question? Where in the U.S. Constitution did the Founder's give the federal government the authority to regulate communication? Answer, NOWHERE! If pornography and other immorality is to regulated then it must not be regulated on the federal level. It is very dangerous to give the federal government that kind of power. The federal government can easily regulate freedom of speech for everybody. Abolish the Federal Communications Commission, immediately! Ron Bedell

June 18, 2010

Enver Masud said:

Net neutrality: Our experience with Yahoo email blocking The Federal Communications Commission has been examining net neutrality. The Wisdom Fund's experience with Yahoo sheds light on the state of net neutrality today. For more than a year we've been trying to get Yahoo to stop blocking our email to Yahoo addresses. We follow recommended email practices, and have about 600 Yahoo email addresses on our mailing list. Yet Yahoo often blocks our email, and we get the following automated response: "Warning: message still undelivered after 4 hours "Will keep trying until message is 3 days old", followed by: "Message could not be delivered for 2 days "Message will be deleted from queue". Yahoo isn't the only culprit. We've had similar experiences with Comcast, Hotmail, ... Founded in 1995, we are a tax-exempt corporation registered in the Commonwealth of Virginia. We're classified as a Section 501(c)(3) organization as described in the Internal Revenue Code—our employee identification number is 54-1755689.

June 19, 2010 | url

Captain Gabe said:

... Yahoo is a private company. If they don't want your email, they don't have to take it. Their users can only go elsewhere as a remedy, as they have no claim or rights to Yahoo's private property. The Wisdom Fund's has even less. Try sending a letter.

June 19, 2010

Really, Gabe?, Lowly rated comment [Show]

jt said:

rofl carl you are effing nuts.. you can make that case for just about everything in this world. everything was created by individuals in some way and it seems to you public just represents a very vague definition of "people" in general. the question is what are the confines of governmental powers because it's a very technical entity that has undergone extensive studies by those that laid the foundations for this country to prosper while it was most free.. in a lot of areas government meddling wouldn't achieve the desired result but actually creates unintended consequences. of course it doesn't make a difference to you.. everything looks the same eh. rofl.

June 19, 2010

reed said:

... The internet is as important in our time as Gutenberg's printing press was in allowing free communication among people. Where governments control it, free speech dies (think China.) The federal government already mis-uses its power internationally and domestically. The internet is one of the last peaceful ways citizens of the world can tell and show what's really going on despite mainstream media blocks or partisan slants on many many important news stories

June 19, 2010

Flu-Bird said:

Down with big brother This is more reasons why we dont need big brother and his ulterial move to monitor us 24,7 just like STALIN and HITLER would do

June 19, 2010

A New Beginning, Lowly rated comment [Show]

whatintheworld said:

Unfathomable This is nuts. The FCC cannot control the internet. The internet is world wide (www = WORLD WIDE WEB). A federal agency in the United States cannot take over something that is world wide. It's ludicrous.

June 22, 2010

Unknown3rdParty said:

FCC eliminates net neutrality ... and competition As an independent agency operating at the federal level, doesn't that put them on the same level as the Federal Reserve, and as such, doesn't that also suggest that, similarly, they report to Congress but have no federal oversight or supervision? And look at what is happening economically around the world ... That said, giving the FCC control over the Internet, which as already pointed out is a world-wide entity, will ultimately and eventually--if not sooner--result in limited free speech; it's also entirely possible--probable??--that technology will suffer as well: by reclassifying the 'net to be a telecommunications service, what's to stop the FCC from deciding what technology gets to use THEIR bandwidth in addition to who gets to say what? Time to roll up our sleeves and fight back.

June 22, 2010

Erick said:

TAXES! Lets not forget the possibility of Internet TAXATION with this reclassification move! We're already taxed to death...why not just one more stab to the heart? With our government: Ignorance reigns and stupidity follows Erick

June 22, 2010 | url

JOHN W. BUGLER said:

PLAYBOOK FROM THE PAST. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p299_Degrelle.html playbook from the past seems to be present day playbook here and now.

June 23, 2010 | url

Bailey Button Ugg Boots said:

5555555 ugg boots Bailey Button Ugg Boots That said, giving the FCC control over the Internet, which as already pointed out is a world-wide entity, will ultimately and eventually--if not sooner--result in

July 01, 2010 | url