{"id":1802,"date":"2014-11-19T16:16:41","date_gmt":"2014-11-19T16:16:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/discovery.org\/tech\/2014\/11\/19\/the_myth_that_title_ii_regulat\/"},"modified":"2024-10-15T21:56:22","modified_gmt":"2024-10-15T21:56:22","slug":"the_myth_that_title_ii_regulat","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.discovery.org\/tech\/2014\/11\/19\/the_myth_that_title_ii_regulat\/","title":{"rendered":"The Myth That Title II Regulation of Broadband and Wireless Would Be Comparable"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Supporters of Title II reclassification for broadband Internet access services point to the fact that some wireless services have been governed by a subset of Title II provisions since 1993.  No one is complaining about that.  So what, then, is the basis for opposition to similar regulatory treatment for broadband?<br \/>\nAustin Schlick, the former FCC general counsel, outlined the so-called &#8220;Third Way&#8221; legal framework for broadband in a 2010 <a href=\"https:\/\/apps.fcc.gov\/edocs_public\/attachmatch\/DOC-297945A1.pdf\">memo<\/a> that proposed Title II reclassification along with forbearance of all but six of Title II&#8217;s 48 provisions.  He noted that &#8220;this third way is a proven success for wireless communications.&#8221;  This is the model that President Obama is backing.  Title II reclassification &#8220;doesn&#8217;t have to be a big deal,&#8221; Harold Feld <a href=\"http:\/\/www.wetmachine.com\/tales-of-the-sausage-factory\/the-last-time-the-fcc-classified-a-service-as-title-ii-was-2007-heres-how-it-worked\/\">reminds<\/a> us, since the wireless industry seems to be doing okay despite the fact mobile phone service was classified as a Title II service in 1993.<br \/>\nTo be clear, only mobile voice services are subject to Title II, since the FCC <a href=\"https:\/\/apps.fcc.gov\/edocs_public\/attachmatch\/FCC-07-30A1.pdf\">classified<\/a> broadband access to the Internet over wireless networks as an &#8220;information&#8221; service (and thus completely exempt from Title II) in March of 2007.<br \/>\nSec. 6002(c) of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/103rd-congress\/house-bill\/2264\/text\">Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993<\/a> (Public Law 103-66) modified Sec. 332 of the Communications Act so commercial mobile services would be treated &#8220;as a common carrier &#8230; except for such provisions of title II as the Commission may specify by regulation as inapplicable&#8230;&#8221;<br \/>\nThe FCC commendably did forbear.  Former Chairman Reed E. Hundt would later boast in his <a href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/You-Say-Want-Revolution-Information\/dp\/0300083645\">memoir<\/a> that the commission &#8220;totally deregulated the wireless industry.&#8221; He added that this was possible thanks to a Democratic Congress and former Vice President Al Gore&#8217;s tie-breaking Senate vote.<br \/>\n<a href=\"http:\/\/techliberation.com\/2014\/11\/19\/the-myth-that-title-ii-regulation-of-broadband-and-wireless-would-be-comparable\/#more-74965\">Continue reading at <em>Technology Liberation Front<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supporters of Title II reclassification for broadband Internet access services point to the fact that some wireless services have been governed by a subset of Title II provisions since 1993. No one is complaining about that. So what, then, is the basis for opposition to similar regulatory treatment for broadband? Austin Schlick, the former FCC general counsel, outlined the so-called &#8220;Third Way&#8221; legal framework for broadband in a 2010 memo that proposed Title II reclassification along with forbearance of all but six of Title II&#8217;s 48 provisions. He noted that &#8220;this third way is a proven success for wireless communications.&#8221; This is the model that President Obama is backing. Title II reclassification &#8220;doesn&#8217;t have to be a big deal,&#8221; Harold<a class=\"ellipsis article-more\" href=\"https:\/\/www.discovery.org\/tech\/2014\/11\/19\/the_myth_that_title_ii_regulat\/\"><span> Read More &rsaquo;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":219,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[58],"tags":[],"coauthors":[112],"class_list":["post-1802","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-net-neutrality"],"acf":[],"author_names":["Hance Haney"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.discovery.org\/tech\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1802","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.discovery.org\/tech\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.discovery.org\/tech\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.discovery.org\/tech\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/219"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.discovery.org\/tech\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1802"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.discovery.org\/tech\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1802\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.discovery.org\/tech\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1802"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.discovery.org\/tech\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1802"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.discovery.org\/tech\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1802"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.discovery.org\/tech\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=1802"}],"wp:action-assign-author":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.discovery.org\/tech\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/post\/1802"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}