Eshoo Presses Wheeler on 'Light-Touch Title II Approach' to Net Neutrality
The FCC needs to use a “light-touch Title II approach” to crafting net neutrality rules, applicable to wired and wireless services and banning paid prioritization deals, House Communications Subcommittee ranking member Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., told FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler in…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
a letter Wednesday, consistent with her past statements on the issue. The approach “should include but not be limited to the use of Section 202, which explicitly states that ‘any unjust or unreasonable discrimination’ is unlawful,” Eshoo told Wheeler, referring to the Communications Act (http://bit.ly/1x9bXSL). “This approach should seek comment on whether to retain the use of other consumer protection provisions contained within Title II, including the preservation of universal service, the protection of privacy and the assurance of access for people with disabilities.” She argued against the idea that Title II is a “relic of the past” or “heavy-handed” in its nature, pointing to forbearance authority: “The Commission has used this forbearance authority often -- removing many legal obligations from Title II services like wireless voice, for example, but never abandoning the core nondiscrimination protections that are at the heart of the Communications Act.” She pointed to recent settlements the FCC has reached with AT&T and Verizon over mobile cramming and privacy. “Unless the Commission reclassifies broadband under Title II, it will not be able to take actions like these to protect consumers and businesses when it comes to their use of broadband and other modern communications services,” Eshoo said. Industry officials have strongly opposed such arguments, saying Title II would be onerous and that forbearance is no easy or assured path for the companies involved in providing broadband service. They also argue against applying the same standards to wired and wireless services.