The FCC is trying to walk a careful line on net neutrality, according to Democratic and Republican sources in Congress and the FCC.
Earlier this year, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed regulations giving his agency wide authority over broadband services, including the right to set limits on new services and innovation.
Lately, however, Genachowski seems on a more cautious approach, distancing himself from the more fanatical regulations. Word coming from the FCC is that Genachowski decided that he couldn’t satisfy the net neutrality fanatics and still have good policy. So if he couldn’t get both, he decided, he should focus on good policy.
Naturally, the Professional Left is outraged but at this point, most policymakers recognize that as a political pressure game and they are increasingly disregarding it. In fact, Genachowski is even getting a great deal of credit – especially within Congress – for having the courage to withstand the political pressure from Free Press and Moveon.org.
What’s more, the FCC is now genuinely paying attention to substantive input. Last week, the Phoenix Center submitted an economic study about net neutrality and job losses. The FCC’s reaction was quick and hard, with Paul de Sa, chief of the Strategic Planning and Policy office, blogging a strong criticism of the report. It was a bit odd, since they did not actually dispute the report’s underlying premise, but the FCC deserves respect for paying attention to criticisms and engaging candidly with its critics.
Still, the heated response surprised a few people at the Commission. For weeks, since Congress has made it clear that they want to make any substantial rules for broadband, Genachowski has been trying to turn down the temperature in this fight.
“The Republicans can yell all they want and we don’t really care,” said one person involved with this matter. “But when you’ve got Dingell, the CBC, the Hispanic Caucus and others telling you to hold off, it’s a whole different story.”
If the FCC reserves its public criticism for critics of the net neutrality regulations, then De Sa’s response might be seen as undercutting Genachowski’s desire to turn down the heat on this issue. Alternately, this could be a bold step in a different direction. If the FCC begins offering similar criticism to the theatrics and outlandish claims of the more boorish pro-net neutrality groups (one of them recently delivered waffles to the FCC), then the FCC Chairman will begin getting more public credit for his courage in the face of political pressure.
Sure, the Chairman will get more criticism from Free Press and their surrogates, but they will attack him no matter what he does. If he’s going to suffer their attacks, he might as well get credit for not buckling to them, too. More than a few folks in Congress and at the FCC have begun to say it’s time to stop coddling the radicals and start calling them out.