There’s a furor over the free Web.
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler hit back at widespread criticism on Thursday that his proposed rules for governing Internet traffic will allow broadband providers to get rich at the expense of consumers.
“There has been a great deal of misinformation that has recently surfaced,” Wheeler said in a blog post defending his proposal. “The allegation that it will result in anti-competitive price increases for consumers is also unfounded.”
At issue are proposed rules that could radically reshape the Web by allowing content companies to pay for faster Internet connections. Critics say the new rules violate “net neutrality” principles.
The old net neutrality rules — which required all Internet traffic be treated equally — were tossed by a federal appeals court in January.
Wheeler’s proposal, which will be made public after a vote by the FCC’s commissioners next month, makes way for Internet service providers to begin demanding fees from content providers, like Netflix, for improved access to consumers.
This has led to a flood of criticisms from Silicon Valley bigwigs, politicians and consumers, who say the FCC is “killing the Internet.”
“Funny what happens when the @fcc is run by a former lobbyist for cable companies,” tweeted PayPal exec Rakesh Agrawal, referencing Wheeler’s lobbyist past.
“Deeply troubling report on new #FCC net neutrality rules, there shouldn’t be a ‘fast lane,’ ” tweeted Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY).
Wheeler said he’s merely complying with the appeals court decision that the FCC cannot dictate what Internet service providers, or ISPs, charge unless it reclassifies them as utility companies. Wheeler said in February that he would not appeal the court’s ruling, paving the way for a pay-to-play system.
The FCC went into full-on damage control Thursday, including the blog post and a separate statement from Wheeler. It also made FCC officials available to the press to explain the proposed rules.
The new rules will prevent ISPs from blocking or slowing content for anti-competitive reasons, according to the FCC official. Regulators will also seek to prevent anti-competitive behavior by cracking down on “commercially unreasonable” transactions between ISPs and content providers.
But both supporters and critics were left to speculate as to what is considered “commercially unreasonable.”
“It seems to me that ‘commercially reasonable’ means it can’t be predatory, but I’m speculating,” said Charles Zielinski, a former FCC attorney.