3 ms·

> the fact that reclassification gets us one step closer to rate setting As I've said elsewhere, this is indeed FUD. (I also disagree with most of the rest of

> the fact that reclassification gets us one step closer to rate setting As I've said elsewhere, this is indeed FUD. (I also disagree with most of the rest of what you say, but I agree that it's not FUD.) The notion of "steps closer" to rate-setting makes little sense in the real-world regulatory environment. If today's FCC hadn't decided to reclassify broadband Internet service under Title II, this would do very little, perhaps nothing, to hold back a future Commission that wanted to impose a rate-setting regime. That future Commission, persuaded that rate-setting was a good idea, would simply open a proceeding to reclassify broadband internet service under Title II and impose a rate setting regime. The fact that broadband internet service was not already classified as a Title II service would be, at most, a very minor impediment given the tremendous deference the FCC is given in making such regulatory decisions. (For one thing, the reversal of a prior regulatory decision is subjected to no special scrutiny.) This would only require a single proceeding in which whatever reasoning the Commission had to support rate setting, would also be its support for Title II reclassification. And since one of the primary objections to Title II reclassification today is that it somehow raises the risk of rate setting, one can only imagine the resistance to actually imposing a rate-setting regime. In other words, this is a classic slippery-slope argument. All the considerations that stop us from setting rates today will be present in the future. The minor administrative hassle of reclassifying broadband internet service under Title II, barely ranks as one of the impediments to imposing such a regime.

rayiner 12y ago
You're right on the legal issue, re: deference, but you're ignoring the political aspect. These proceedings are heavily contested, and it's often easier to push through a new regulatory direction in pieces rather than all at once. From a political standpoint, "reclassification + we promise to forebear" follows by a change in forbearance policy is going to be easier than "reclassification + rate setting" all in one go. It's also not a slippery-slope argument. Rate setting is a part of Title II, whether or not the FCC says they will forebear. And it's part of Title II because there is a long history of rate-setting in telecom. I posit that it's very different to argue about the unprecedented direction a policy may lead (like the NN advocates are doing), and to argue that a policy will take us back to a place we've already been.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > It's also not a slippery-slope argument. It is an argument that this is bad because of what might be done later based on it. That is exactly a slippery slope argument. > Rate setting is a part of Title II, whether or not the FCC says they will forebear. Rate setting is part of Title II, but if the FCC does forbear (not "say they will forbear") as part of the same regulatory package in which they find that retail broadband service is a Title II telecommunication service, the rate setting is expressly not part of this regulation package. Its a speculative thing that some future FCC might do, hence, a slippery slope argument. (And, its a speculative thing that a future FCC could do whether or not this FCC adopted Title II with forbearance on rate setting.) OTOH, if the speculative future risk of rate setting is a real concern, I'm sure that many supporters of net neutrality would stand with you in lobbying Congress for a revision to Title II prohibiting, or at least establishing a long moratorium that can be reviewed later for a more permanent prohibition, FCC rate setting for retail broadband.

rayiner 12y ago

You're right on the legal issue, re: deference, but you're ignoring the political aspect. These proceedings are heavily contested, and it's often easier to push through a new regulatory direction in pieces rather than all at once. From a political standpoint, "reclassification + we promise to forebear" follows by a change in forbearance policy is going to be easier than "reclassification + rate setting" all in one go. It's also not a slippery-slope argument. Rate setting is a part of Title II, whether or not the FCC says they will forebear. And it's part of Title II because there is a long history of rate-setting in telecom. I posit that it's very different to argue about the unprecedented direction a policy may lead (like the NN advocates are doing), and to argue that a policy will take us back to a place we've already been.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> It's also not a slippery-slope argument. It is an argument that this is bad because of what might be done later based on it. That is exactly a slippery slope argument. > Rate setting is a part of Title II, whether or not the FCC says they will forebear. Rate setting is part of Title II, but if the FCC does forbear (not "say they will forbear") as part of the same regulatory package in which they find that retail broadband service is a Title II telecommunication service, the rate setting is expressly not part of this regulation package. Its a speculative thing that some future FCC might do, hence, a slippery slope argument. (And, its a speculative thing that a future FCC could do whether or not this FCC adopted Title II with forbearance on rate setting.) OTOH, if the speculative future risk of rate setting is a real concern, I'm sure that many supporters of net neutrality would stand with you in lobbying Congress for a revision to Title II prohibiting, or at least establishing a long moratorium that can be reviewed later for a more permanent prohibition, FCC rate setting for retail broadband.