In an interview with C-SPAN to be aired on Saturday, Copps said that he is concerned with the $39 billion deal, according to Reuters, which said it has viewed the C-SPAN interview. According to Reuters, Copps said that if the deal did win backing of a majority of commissioners, significant divestitures could be required. Both the FCC and Department of Justice must give their blessing to the deal.

If you’ve been following the issue, nearly nothing about the arguments will be new to you, but as I watched the meeting live today, I was struck by the thoroughness of the arguments both in favor of and against the rules, in particular the polar opposition in the views of Chairman Julius Genachowski and the lengthy, detailed dissent by Republican Commissioner Robert McDowell. With a little help from Scribd and YouTube I’ve embedded some samples of the day’s proceedings below.

First is the prepared statement by Genachowski.

Net Neutrality, Genachowski statement

And here’s the spirited dissent by Commissioner Robert McDowell.

Net Neutrality, McDowell Dissent

Finally, if you you’d rather just watch the proceedings for yourself, here’s a the two-hour-plus session in its entirety. The net neutrality stuff begins at about the 30-minute mark, following other business. The statements by the various commissioners begin at the following time marks:
Copps: ~49 minutes
McDowell: ~1:09
Clyburn: ~1:35
Atwell Baker: ~1:42
Genachowski: ~2:02

Even those who are voting in favor are doing so holding their noses. Of the five voting members of the commission, only one, Democrat Michael Copps, had been considered remotely likely to vote with the two Republicans who had pledged to vote against it. When he announced he would vote in favor yesterday he said he was doing so with reservations.

Republicans, both on the commission and in Congress, sense an opportunity, the size of which you can discern by the size of the headlines topping the Drudge Report during the last few days. Genachowski is being portrayed in 80-point type as the villain “Julius Seizure” out to ruin the freewheeling Internet by shackling it with a list of bureaucratic rules and regulations. The irony is that the current proposal on the table is a dramatic step back from a far more ominous one: Immediately after losing a court case brought by the cable company Comcast over the extent of its legal authority to regulate the Internet, Genachowski considered reclassifying the Internet under the FCC’s Title II authority, which governs regulation of the phone system. This was an extreme response, thankfully abandoned, that would have certainly warranted the nickname. The current proposal is by no stretch of argument so extreme that it amounts to a seizure.

But rules they are, and no one likes new rules where none existed before, least of all multibillion dollar corporations like Comcast and Verizon. Having established in the courts that they have the right to control the use of certain applications that impact the performance of their network–or, more precisely, the fact that the FCC has no legal authority to tell them not to exercise such control–they’re now going to be required to disclose how and why they exercise such controls.

The rules allow for “reasonable network management” by service providers, which is a squishy phrase. Internet companies like Amazon and Skype, which aren’t service providers themselves, argue that the new rules are weak and don’t protect them from service providers that may “reasonably manage” their products and services out of existence. Get your stopwatches ready, because there will almost certainly be several lawsuits over what constitutes “reasonable network management.”

The scenario is easy to imagine: Embittered broadband customers band together in a class-action lawsuit complaining that their provider refuses to allow them to experience the latest video streaming or video chat application. They argue that the provider favors another inferior application that it happens to own. The provider argues that it’s only engaging in “reasonable network management” allowed under FCC rules, leaving judges to tease out what that means. Lawyers are probably already shining up their Ferragamos as they polish their legal briefs.

These cases are already appearing. Comcast and Level 3 Communications are sparring over the terms under which Comcast conveys to its customers video streaming traffic sent by Level 3 associated with its relationship with Netflix. Level 3 has turned to the FCC and the U.S. Department of Justice at a delicate time for Comcast: It wants federal approval for its takeover of NBC Universal, and wants it now.

The FCC’s new rules, rightly or wrongly, make Comcast and companies like it more vulnerable to similar threats by regulators in response to actions taken in their own reasonable self-interest. Until today, this sort of dispute between companies would normally be worked out by negotiators in private, not regulators on the public dime. No matter whose side you tend to favor, the prospect of government gumming up the work with endless busywork isn’t a happy side effect.

The rules themselves may also be challenged. There’s still a huge question–as FCC commissioners Meredith Atwell Baker and Robert McDowell have both argued in recent newspaper op-eds (one in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, the other in today’s Washington Post)– about the FCC’s legal authority over the Internet. House Republicans are already making noise about jumping into the policy fray, and another court challenge is probably likely.

The one overarching mission concerning the Internet that the FCC can undertake with some measure of agreement is that of widening the availability of the network to places it doesn’t adequately reach and to people who don’t have broadband access for economic or other reasons. In an age where so much of daily public business–from applying for a job to becoming an informed voter in the presidential election–all but requires a broadband link, far too many remote and rural areas are the victim of market forces where the investment to build infrastructure in sparsely populated areas outweighs the potential for a reasonable return.

Genachowski has argued that by adapting the Universal Service Fund (which helped the telephone network penetrate these same underserved areas) for broadband, providers could get this otherwise impossible job accomplished. Extending broadband availability was one of President Obama’s campaign promises, but the $7.8 billion in federal stimulus funds awarded under the auspices of the National Telecommunications and Infrastructure Administration and the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service have not and will not make a significant dent in the problem.

Why not focus on what is clearly the more important problem and without question in the national interest, and leave the finer points of how service providers and Web companies carry content to sort themselves out? Like it or not, a new, more legally complicated Internet is here.

Democratic Commissioner Mignon Clyburn said in a separate statement that she plans to vote in favor of the rules, while Republicans Robert McDowell and Meredith Attwell Baker have both promised to vote against them.

Copps’s statement is below.

“These past three weeks have been devoted on my part to intensive discussions about ensuring the continued openness of the Internet and putting consumers, not Big Phone and Big Cable, in maximum control of their online experiences. I have been fighting for nearly a decade to make sure the Internet doesn’t travel down the same road of special interest consolidation and gate-keeper control that other media and telecommunications industries–radio, television, film and cable–have traveled. What an historic tragedy it would be to let that fate befall the dynamism of the Internet. The item we will vote on tomorrow is not the one I would have crafted. But I believe we have been able to make the current iteration better than what was originally circulated. If vigilantly and vigorously implemented by the Commission — and if upheld by the courts–it could represent an important milestone in the ongoing struggle to safeguard the awesome opportunity-creating power of the open Internet. While I cannot vote wholeheartedly to approve the item, I will not block it by voting against it. I instead plan to concur so that we may move forward. I do thank the Chairman for his engagement, and I owe a special debt of gratitude to Commissioner Mignon Clyburn for her thoughtful and creative work to improve this item.”

Reactions are quickly coming from net neutrality advocates. First out of the gate is FreePress, a nonpartisan advocacy group. Its Managing Director Craig Aaron isn’t happy.

“We are deeply disappointed that this Commission appears to be moving forward with deeply flawed rules that don’t live up to the promises of the president or the FCC chairman to protect the free and open Internet. These rules appear to be flush with giant loopholes, and the FCC chairman seems far more concerned with winning the endorsement of AT&T and the cable lobbyists than with listening to the millions of Americans who have pleaded with him to fix his proposal. This short-sighted decision is all too familiar to those who have watched the Obama administration and its appointees squander the opportunity for real change in favor of industry-written compromises that reward the biggest players from Wall Street to health care and now the Internet. There is overwhelming public support for real Net Neutrality, and this setback won’t stop those fighting to save the Internet.”

Next up is Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge–another advocacy group:

The actions by the Federal Communications Commission fall far short of what they could have been. Instead of a rule that would protect everyone, from consumers to applications developers from predatory practices of telephone and cable companies, the Commission settled for much less. Instead of strong, firm rules providing clear protections, the Commission created a vague and shifting landscape open to interpretation. Consumers deserved better. The FCC should have fought for consumers, not put the burden on them to fight for their rights.

There are of course a lot of moving pieces surrounding this debate, and however the chips fall, it’s going to have a long-term effect over how the Internet operates over the next several years.

Earlier this year, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski was dealt an important setback when the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC doesn’t have the legal authority to impose net neutrality rules on broadband providers. In hopes of still finding a way to rein in the providers, he’s since circulated new proposed rules that would require providers to disclose what kind of traffic they intend to throttle and why, giving consumers a little more information so they can make a more informed choice when picking a provider. And in a speech on Dec. 1, Genachowski also expressed support for “usage-based pricing,” which would essentially allow providers to charge variable pricing plans where consumers would pay higher fees for using higher amounts of bandwidth.

Certain Internet companies that aren’t providers, but who rely on having unfettered pipes through which they can deliver their services, aren’t happy with the proposed rules either. Companies like Amazon, Skype and Netflix, want stronger rules that would prevent the providers from slowing down traffic from their sites or blocking them altogether. They’ve even pushed the FCC to reconsider regulating the Internet outright as a telecommunications service, as it does the telephone system today, an idea that Genachowski briefly considered, then abandoned.

No surprise, they’ve been lobbying the FCC heavily, as have the telecom providers. According to Capital Business, a Washington Post publication, 150 organizations have hired 118 lobbying firms to try to influence the outcome of tomorrow’s vote.

The pressure isn’t stopping there. Republican commissioner Robert McDowell has pledged to vote against the rules, saying, as he did in a Wall Street Journal op-ed today, that imposing regulations would threaten everything that makes the Internet a source of innovation. Commissioner Meredith Baker Attwell, also a Republican, has attacked the proposal and similarly pledged to vote against it, arguing that only Congress, not the FCC, has the authority to regulate the Internet.

Congressional Republicans, with their heads full of steam after their November electoral wins, are rushing into the fray. Michigan’s Republican Representative Fred Upton, who will chair the House Energy and Commerce Committee when the new Congress comes into session early next year, wrote Genachowski and called his proposal “the most controversial item the FCC has had before it in a decade.”

Meanwhile, Congressional Democrats are pressing fellow Democrat Michael Copps to vote for Genachowski’s rules, fearing that a vote against them would hurt President Obama politically, as Sara Jerome wrote in Hillicon Valley. In the end, he is expected to fall in line and vote in favor.

Perhaps a harbinger of things to come is the spat between Level 3 Communications and Comcast. Level 3, which operates much of North America’s fiber-optic network, last month accused Comcast of “trying to set up a toll booth” by charging Level 3 recurring fees whenever a Comcast subscriber streamed content that got delivered by Level 3. This happened right after Level 3 cut a deal to become the primary delivery network for Netflix.

The dispute has reached sufficient intensity for Level 3 to ask federal regulators to impose conditions on Comcast in its efforts to acquire NBC Universal, arguing that Comcast’s demand for the fees “adversely changes the nature of the Internet.” The FCC may yet get serious about reviewing the merger, as Politico reported last week.

Comcast for its part has argued that Level 3 is gaming network peering rules, and has “demanded unlimited capacity at our cost.”

Whatever the outcome of tomorrow’s vote, expect lots of unhappy people.

The FCC’s five commissioners voted 3-2 to launch its re-regulation effort, with the agency’s two Republican members dissenting. The proposal would reverse a 2002 decision by the FCC that deregulated Internet lines.

The vote basically kicks off the FCC’s effort to change the way it regulates phone and cable companies’ Internet lines. After a few months of public comment, the agency is expected to issue an order this fall that would implement its changes.

“We need to reclaim our authority,” said Democratic FCC Commissioner Michael Copps. “I, for one, am worried about relying only on the good will of a few powerful companies to achieve this country’s broadband hopes and dreams.”

Read the rest of this post on the original site

Last week, after much delay, longtime Internet exec Julius Genachowski (pictured here) was confirmed by the Senate as the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.

It is an important role for the future development of the Web, of course, although it took a dog’s age into the new Democratic administration to approve him.

Hopefully, he and the other commissioners can soon get to work on a wide range of major digital issues, such as a national broadband plan that does not cost Americans a fortune.

Genachowski, a close tech adviser to President Barack Obama, was seated along with Commissioner Robert McDowell, a Republican appointee who was confirmed for a second FCC term.

After the Senate approves two others–Democrat Mignon Clyburn and Meredith Attwell Baker for the GOP–in the next month, it will round out the five-member panel.

(The other FCC commissioner is a Dem, Michael Copps, who has been acting chairman while Genachowski got approval.)

Genachowski, a former FCC staffer, was most recently working as a VC at Rock Creek Ventures and LaunchBox Digital. But he is best known to many in Silicon Valley as a top exec at IAC/InterActiveCorp. (IACI).

He is likely to make his debut to chair his first meeting this coming Thursday, and it is a humdinger of dull:

According to the FCC’s Web site, the July open meeting, held in Washington, D.C., will consider three items:

1.) Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Provide Spectrum for the Operation of Medical Body Area Networks: The Commission will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to allocate spectrum and establish service and technical rules for the operation of Medical Body Area Networks to monitor patients’ physiological data.

2.) Amendment of Service and Eligibility Rules for FM Broadcast Stations: The Commission will consider a Report and Order concerning changes in the FM translator rules to allow AM broadcast stations to rebroadcast their signals on eligible FM translator stations.

3.) Amendment of Part 101 of the Commission’s Rules to Accommodate 30 Megahertz Channels in the 6525-6875 MHz Band: The Commission will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking addressing whether to provide licensees with authority to operate on channels with bandwidths up to 30 megahertz in the Upper 6 GHz band and whether to extend conditional authority to two additional channel pairs in the 23 GHz band, as well as an Order addressing a related waiver reques.

But the site also mentioned that “the Meeting also will include a presentation on the status of the Commission’s process for developing a National Broadband Plan.”

Now, that is something BoomTown would like to know about since this country is effectively still in the dirt-road period, in terms of high-speed broadband access for Americans.

But, of course, the cost of what we do get–which is very substandard compared to a lot of other countries–is also very pricey.

Let’s hope Genachowski–who has a lot of other issues on his plate, especially as the media industry undergoes drastic reconfiguration too–can do something about it.

In a related note, Lawrence Strickling was also OK’d to run the telecom division of the Commerce Department, which is the agency with the dough ($4.7 billion in government funds) to help the create this supposed Internet infrastructure boom with the FCC.

I remain dubious of any movement in the arena, but still hopeful.

And, until there is some action from Genachowski, here is a highlights video from an onstage interview Walt Mossberg and I did with former FCC chairman Kevin Martin–along with Verizon (VZ) Wireless CEO Lowell McAdam–at the sixth D: All Things Digital conference in 2008.

Here is the D6 video: