It would also cast doubt on the ability of the Commission to ensure that broadband providers receiving universal service subsidies do not overcharge their consumers.
Advertisement
“This legislation threatens the FCC’s ability to enforce merger conditions that provide low-priced broadband to disadvantaged communities”, the letter adds.
The group issued its statement in response to a filing that the head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration made with the FCC, on behalf of the Obama administration, in which it applauded the agency for advancing a proposal that would give third-party manufacturers the information and access they need to create their own TV set top boxes. “Enactment of Representative Kinzinger’s bill will alleviate some the risk to competition and investment created by the FCC’s Open Internet Order and in so doing, restore the certainty necessary for providers to increase their investment in new broadband infrastructure”. That has included an almost-endless parade of taxpayer-funded “fact finding” hearings in which FCC boss Tom Wheeler has been dragged before the House to defend the FCC’s uncharacteristic recent decision to actually start protecting consumers. There is broad agreement that 20th century-style rate regulation is unnecessary in the highly competitive market for wireless broadband service.
Unfortunately for the nation’s biggest ISPs, the White House has issued a statement of administration policy (pdf) making it very clear that any such bill will be vetoed by the President.
The White House has announced it would veto legislation expected to pass the House soon that would prohibit the FCC from regulating broadband prices. “Regulation” is defined to include any use of rulemaking or enforcement authority to “establish, declare, or review the reasonableness of such rate”. Verizon, meanwhile, just chose to expand its FiOS fiber construction for the first time in several years, bolstering FCC Chairman Wheeler’s contention that the passage of net neutrality rules last year hasn’t harmed network investment. The bill also would hamstring the FCC’s public interest authority to review transactions.
What is the H.R. 2666?
“This bill redefines “rate regulation” to mean any action that involves a rate, not simply the setting of a rate as is understood today by the general public and even the Supreme Court”. That the Committee did not adopt that common-sense amendment – which likely would have led to legislation with broad bipartisan support – strongly suggests that its concern has less to do with rate regulation and more to do with preventing the FCC from investigating practices that may undermine net neutrality protections that Committee leadership has vocally opposed.
Advertisement
Opposition to the legislation does not necessarily mean opposition to data caps, zero-rating arrangements, or financial inducements related to privacy per se.
