White House Signs Off On FCC's Needless Net Neutrality Rules

Peter Suderman | September 16, 2011

A series of tubes. The White House budget office signed off on the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules this week. According to CNet, that means that the regulations, which passed the Commission on a 3-2 vote last December, could take effect in a few months. Of course, the FCC will almost certainly still have to deal with a slew of lawsuits from the private sector, as well as various challenges from the legislative branch.

Legislative challenges aren't likely to go anywhere while Democrats control either the White House or a branch Congress, but there's a good chance—perhaps even better than 50 percent—that the agency's latest attempt to enforce neutrality regulations will end up like its last attempt: struck down in the court system. As I recounted in Reason's March issue, the administration's long and convulted quest to pass net neutrality has long been something of an exercise in face-saving, an effort to give some of its most ardent supporters something they desperately wanted, despite a lack of real-world justification for the policy.

As Penn Law's Gerald Faulhaber notes in his recent paper on the economics of net neutrality, advocates for the policy have never been able to demonstrate a pattern of violation. "One has to read the R&O [report & order] very closely to find any empirical support whatsoever that any of the suspect behaviors the FCC seeks to prevent have actually occurred," he writes. And even then, the agency names just four violations, one of which was resolved before the FCC interfered and another of which never actually resulted in a formal complaint to the FCC. Faulhaber continues:

In over a decade, there were only four examples of purported misconduct (one which was denied by the courts and another which didn’t even rise to the level of a complaint) for the entire broadband ISP industry. By any standard, four complaints about an entire industry in over a decade would seem to be cause for a commendation, not for restrictive regulations.

The FCC acknowledges this lack of evidence of actual wrongdoing by referring in the [regulation] to the proposed rules as “prophylactic,” or preventive. Their purpose, therefore, is to prevent things from happening that haven’t actually happened thus far. Further, the R&O acknowledges explicitly that “...[the rules] incorporate longstanding openness principles that are generally in line with current practices and with norms endorsed by many broadband providers.” If the rules are indeed aligned with current practices and norms, then why, it might be asked, do we need them?

Why indeed—especially if the rules may ultimately be struck down—except perhaps to please a pro-Obama constituency highly invested in seeing the rules passed?

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

Fist of Etiquette|9.16.11 @ 3:01PM|#

The plan is to protest is state capitals and major cities across the nation, but the focus of the revolution will be in New York, where a hoped-for 20,000 anti-capitalists will “occupy” Wall Street, by which they mean set up a grungy temporary encampment on the sidewalk somewhere near the Stock Exchange in order to garner media attention for their message.

The NYSE very active on Saturdays, is it?

|9.16.11 @ 2:42PM|#

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler.....ir-moment/

Tomorrow is the Day of Rage. I didn't even know it. I can only hope and pray some dirty hippies come to my house raging. I haven't fired a shot in anger in years.

sevo|9.16.11 @ 3:26PM|#

"The protesters will “refuse” to leave until “their one demand is met,” but they have not yet reached consensus on what that demand will be."
I know what it is!
"FREE SHIT!"

|9.16.11 @ 3:27PM|#

Where is Dunphy? This is a situation that calls for some real police brutality.

Spartacus|9.16.11 @ 3:43PM|#

They should demand that an angry mob of the gainfully employed come in and kick the crap out of them, and they should refuse to leave until it happens.

|9.16.11 @ 3:04PM|#

On Constitution Day? Odd.

|9.16.11 @ 3:05PM|#

That's all like old and written in a dead language that no one speaks and stuff.

|9.16.11 @ 3:18PM|#

Yeah, I can't make heads or tails of it.

Art-P.O.G.|9.17.11 @ 6:32AM|#

Damn esses look like effs.

cynical|9.16.11 @ 9:06PM|#

Be sort of awkward if CD demonstrators ran into DOR demonstrators.

BakedPenguin|9.16.11 @ 3:00PM|#

[the] FCC [is] referring ...to the proposed rules as “prophylactic,”

Good. If they're going to fuck us over, they can at least wear a prophylactic.

Regulatory HPV can still shed off their officious ballsacks.

Art-P.O.G.|9.17.11 @ 6:33AM|#

Sugarfree? Thank you for that image. I'm sure it won't haunt me one bit.

Reformed Republican|9.16.11 @ 3:03PM|#

The FCC acknowledges this lack of evidence of actual wrongdoing by referring in the [regulation] to the proposed rules as “prophylactic,”

Prophylactics make things less enjoyable.

Fist of Etiquette|9.16.11 @ 3:04PM|#

I demand personal civil liability from those who would everstep their authority. I demand it!

sevo|9.16.11 @ 3:28PM|#

"The FCC acknowledges this lack of evidence of actual wrongdoing by referring in the [regulation] to the proposed rules as “prophylactic,” or preventive."

'Well, no one's done anything and we're going to make sure they don't do it again.'

Just a Question|9.16.11 @ 3:38PM|#

Could this be reveresed in January of 2013 when President Ron Paul takes office?

|9.16.11 @ 5:14PM|#

Four incidents by ISPs, all resolved without this authority, versus how many incidents of the FCC overstepping its bounds? I see no reason to give the FCC more power, given its track record.

|9.16.11 @ 10:20PM|#

Support for net neutrality rules is a pretty reliable and accurate moron test.

Moncler jas|9.19.11 @ 5:46AM|#

Thanks for this interesting information I will publish a link on our blog so my personal readers can benefit from it too.Moncler kinderen , Moncler Hoody Vrouwen ,

Reason.com