The Federal Communications Commission's special counsel for external affairs, Gigi Sohn, took to Twitter on Tuesday to discuss the release of the new proposal that would regulate how Internet service providers handle web traffic.
Sohn gave 27 responses to questions in the hour-long chat. Twitter participants repeatedly questioned Sohn about the possibility of reclassifying broadband Internet as a utility; this option would mean ISPs could be susceptible to much more regulation, and is seen by many as the most aggressive option available to the FCC.
@GigiBSohnFCC Putting aside what item asks, is Chairman's mind truly open to Title II or does he see it as nuclear option? #FCCNetNeutrality— Marcus Switzer (@marcusswitzer) May 13, 2014
.@Marcusswitzer Chairman has always been clear that Title II is a viable option. #FCCNetNeutrality proposal asks which option is best.— Gigi Sohn (@GigiBSohnFCC) May 13, 2014
Others talked about the wider ramifications of net neutrality, and how they factor into the FCC's decision.
Communities of color already face a media that discriminates against them--do they need more? #FCCNetNeutrality #mediajustice — CommonCause (@CommonCause) May 13, 2014
.@CommonCause: draft asks qs about the impact of an open internet on the digital divide & access 4 all communities. #FCCNetNeutrality — Gigi Sohn (@GigiBSohnFCC) May 13, 2014
Some got right to the point -- will fast lanes mean the rest of the Internet suffers?
#FCCNetNeutrality Will the rules proposed by the FCC discriminate against smaller content providers that can't afford to pay for fast lanes? — Cleber? (@cleberfl) May 13, 2014
.@cleberfl the draft asks if paid prioritization should be banned outright & seeks comment on best ways 2 protect innovators... — Gigi Sohn (@GigiBSohnFCC) May 13, 2014
An interesting question posed by another participant brought up the idea of city governments that have expressed interest in building out their own broadband infrastructure, or attracting providers such as Google Fiber. Some of those efforts have been countered by proposed legislation.
What can/will @FCC do to get rid of state laws protecting incumbent ISPs from having to compete with muni broadband? When? #FCCNetNeutrality — Mike Doherty (@mikedoherty_ca) May 13, 2014
.@mikedoherty_ca The Chairman has said that he will look at pre-empting state restricition on muni broadand. #FCCNetNeutrality— Gigi Sohn (@GigiBSohnFCC) May 13, 2014
One of the more direct answers came in response to a question about the free market. Sohn left no doubt that FCC chairman Tom Wheeler believes the Internet requires regulation to thrive.
@GigiBSohnFCC How can the "free market" be expected to work out these issues when virtually every market is monopolized? #FCCNetNeutrality— Mike Harris (@neosar) May 13, 2014
.@neosar: Chairman knows free market won't protect open internet. That's why he's proposing new #FCCNetNeutrality rules - none exist today — Gigi Sohn (@GigiBSohnFCC) May 13, 2014
It was not all pro-net neutrality activists. Sohn responded to one person who criticized the FCC's regulation.
Vs leaving it alone? MT @altondrew: @GigiBSohnFCC Cost-benefit analysis to weigh Title II treatment v sec. 706 treatment? #FCCNetNeutrality — Seton Motley (@SetonMotley) May 13, 2014
.@SetonMotley Right now there r no rules 2 protect open internet. ISPs thrived & invested when 2010 rules were in place. #FCCNetNeutrality— Gigi Sohn (@GigiBSohnFCC) May 13, 2014
The important but less publicized issue of wireless-Internet regulation, which differs slightly from that of broadband ISPs, also came up.
.@GigiBSohnFCC Does the NPRM include wireless or does it still focus primarily on wireline regulation? #FCCnetneutrality
— Rick Kaplan (@rakaplan) May 13, 2014
.@rakaplan: the proposal includes both wireline & wireless & asks whether we should change wireless rules. #FCCNetNeutrality— Gigi Sohn (@GigiBSohnFCC) May 13, 2014
Internet activist and Reddit founder Alexis Ohanian jumped in at the end to invite the FCC to do an AMA on Reddit, which Sohn said the agency would consider.
.@alexisohanian Thanks for the invite! I'll definitely consider it! #FCCNetNeutrality— Gigi Sohn (@GigiBSohnFCC) May 13, 2014
Meanwhile, the CEOs of America's biggest telecom providers, including Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and Time Warner Cable, came out against the possibility of being reclassified as a utility, and put under stricter regulation by the FCC on Tuesday, before the Twitter chat.
In a letter sent to the FCC, the CEOs argued that the "light-touch approach" to regulation -- that is, the status quo -- has enabled the American telecom industry to thrive, and said changing it would be a mistake.
"The future of the open Internet has nothing to do with Title II regulation, and Title II has nothing to do with the open Internet," the CEOs wrote, referring to Title II reclassification, a procedure that would allow the FCC to reclassify broadband as a telecommunication service. This would make telecoms subject to "common carriers" rules, giving the FCC much more leeway to dictate what they can and can't do.
The CEOs went one step further, claiming the threat of reclassification is "investment-chilling." They argued that when the FCC declared broadband did not fall under Title II, "billions" got invested in the industry.
"Reclassification of broadband Internet access offerings as Title II -- telecommunications services -- would impose great costs, allowing unprecedented government micromanagement of all aspects of the Internet economy," the letter continued.
Telecom companies are not the only ones concerned about Title II. A group of six Republican senators, including minority leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), sent their own letter to the FCC on Tuesday, pleading against the threat of "monopoly-era" regulations to the country's "competitive and dynamic broadband economy."
The senators echoed the CEOs, applauding the "light regulatory touch" applied until now, and said they agree that reclassification would be dangerous to the industry. But it's not just reclassification that the senators oppose -- any net-neutrality regulation is "unnecessary," they added.