Note: The debate over net neutrality continues as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposes reclassifying the Internet in ways that will allow increased federal regulation of it, which some call FCC Chairman Genachowski's "third way" (versus no regulation and full regulation). Now the issue is being moved to the Congress to define and the various sides are descending on Capitol Hill with lobbyists and other advocates to influence this process. We have previously published positions that support net neutrality and are critical of it , but below we update you on was is largely the corporate interests perspective on this issue advocated in a Washington Post editorial and a letter to Congress from the Hispanic Technology and Telecommunications Partnership (HTTP).
Is net neutrality good for the Latino community requiring its openness to be protected by government, or do corporate Internet service providers (ISPs) need more control over the Internet to foster innovation and their profitability? Are the Latino organizations that are supporting the policies of the major corporations involved (the Washington Post, Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc.) selling out or acting in the best interests of their community?
As this issue develops, it is important for the Latino community to educate ourselves about the issue and what is at stake. We will continue to publish the pros and cons on this issue as it develops.
---Angelo Falcón
C O N T E N T S
* Editorial: "Why broadband regulation needs help from Congress," Washington Post (May 24, 2010)
* Letter to Congress by the Hispanic Technology and Telecommunications Partnership (HTTP)
Editorial
Why broadband regulation needs help from Congress
Washington Post (May 24, 2010); A18
JULIUS GENACHOWSKI, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, cannot win for losing.
Internet service providers (ISPs), including Comcast and AT&T, insist that a light touch is needed when regulating the Internet to guard against innovation-stifling intervention. Some public interest groups and businesses, including Google, argue that the FCC must seriously police the Internet to ensure ISPs do not discriminate against certain technologies. (Disclosure: The Washington Post Co. has interests in broadcast and cable television and businesses that depend on the Internet, all of which could be affected by FCC action or inaction.)
The debate intensified dramatically last month after a D.C. federal appeals court struck down the FCC's relatively relaxed regulatory approach .
From Mr. Genachowski's perspective, the ruling left the agency with a distasteful choice: Either abandon efforts to regulate broadband or reclassify the service to subject it to more muscular legal provisions typically reserved for telephone companies and other common carriers. Mr. Genachowski, in an effort at compromise, chose a third way: apply only a few of the common-carrier provisions to parts of broadband delivery.
This approach is also unacceptable. For some eight years, the agency has argued that broadband constitutes an "information service" and that it should be subject only to a light regulatory touch. To reverse course now by classifying broadband as a telecommunications service would require the agency to throw out years of its own data and analysis. While agencies have broad latitude in reevaluating regulatory schemes, reversals should be linked to significant market shifts. The facts do not support such a conclusion, and the FCC should not now try to shoehorn broadband into an existing -- but incompatible -- regulatory scheme.
What is needed is a fourth way: The agency, industry, consumer groups and other interested parties should work with Congress to craft clear but limited rules tailored to broadband. Advocates of increased oversight worry that the often-protracted legislative process will leave a gaping regulatory void that ISPs will exploit to engage in mischief. This is nonsense. It ignores the ISPs' need to provide good service to keep their customers, and it does not take into account the healthy oversight provided by those consumers and Internet watchdog groups. The Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department also have the power to police anticompetitive or fraudulent acts.
At the moment, the FCC appears powerless to follow through with its national broadband plan, which includes the goal of expanding service to minority and poor communities. While we do not agree with much of the plan, there are worthwhile elements, including reporting, monitoring and transparency requirements that the FCC could not enact without explicit legal authority. This is yet another reason why the agency should make a trek to Capitol Hill.
Letter to Congress
By the Hispanic Technology and Telecommunications Partnership (HTTP)
Dear Member of the United States Congress,
On behalf of the Hispanic Technology & Telecommunications Partnership, thank you for signing a recent letter with other House Democrats on the importance of congressional intervention in the matter of the proposed classification of broadband services under Title II by the FCC. Just like you, we are deeply concerned about the impact that this proposal "third way" would have on the state of broadband deployment and adoption in the Hispanic community.
As you may know, the HTTP Coalition has actively participated in the FCC's public comment process on the National Broadband Plan and the Open Internet NPRM - submitting comments and replies on numerous occasions. Enclosed are a number of statements from Hispanic organizations, all part of the HTTP Coalition, who like us, and like you, all express concerns regarding the consequences such regulations will have for our community.
The current regulatory structure has led to the growth of broadband technology and its affordable deployment for scores of Latinos in our country. However, pursuing Chairman Genachowski's "third way" approach only leads to uncertainty, jeopardizing the investment necessary to make broadband more accessible and affordable - critical components to build on our achievements and answer the challenge to connect more Latinos to this important technology. We know that this investment is central to achieving the objectives of the National Broadband Plan and closing the digital divide as soon as possible.
We hope that your colleagues in Congress will join you in offering direction to the FCC and helping to clarify its authority. We value the leadership you are providing and we hope that Chairman Rockefeller and Chairman Waxman follow the reasonable guidance you are offering for a short term and longer term frameworks for moving forward.
We applaud you for your leadership on this issue and we look forward to working with you in the coming months to ensure that all Americans are able to experience the benefits of a broadband connection.
Sincerely,
Gus West,
Co-Chairman HTTP
HTTP Members
Alianza Dominicana
ASPIRA Association
Association for the Advancement of Mexican Americans
Cuban American National Council
Dialogue on Diversity
Hispanic Federation
Hispanic Information Television Network (HITN)
Interamerican College of Physicians and Surgeons
Labor Council for Latin American Advancement (LCLAA)
Latinos in Information Sciences and Technology Association (LISTA)
MANA, A National Latina Organization
National Association of Hispanic Publications
National Conference of Puerto Rican Women
National Hispanic Council on Aging
National Hispanic Medical Association
National Puerto Rican Coalition (NPRC)
U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce
U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
The Hispanic Institute
For further information:
Hispanic Technology and
Telecommunications Partnership
906 Pennsylvania Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20003
T: (202) 544.8284
F: (202) 544.8285
Website: httponline.org