AT&T Could ‘Live With’ Fifth FCC Internet Principle
AT&T could cope if the FCC adds a fifth principle on nondiscrimination to its Internet policy statement, but the company doesn’t think it’s necessary, Senior Executive Vice President Jim Cicconi said Friday. “If it were structured properly, I could certainly conceive of one that we could live with,” Cicconi said on a panel on net neutrality at the Pike & Fischer Broadband Summit.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
With acting FCC Chairman Michael Copps pursuing a fifth principle, once staunchly opposed broadband providers have appeared more open to discussion. Cicconi’s comments echoed statements two weeks ago by Verizon executive Tom Tauke. And a Comcast executive said recently the cable company has always been willing to discuss network neutrality and management issues with policymakers (CD June 11 p7).
Like those other companies, AT&T doesn’t think a fifth principle is needed, said Cicconi, noting that the FCC successfully applied the original four principles to stop discriminatory conduct by Comcast last year. “But if the commission concluded it needed to clarify” its position on discrimination, “found the right language, and frankly it didn’t constrain our ability to manage our networks comfortably to deal with some of the challenges” like congestion and cybersecurity, “we're certainly open to that,” he said. Cicconi wouldn’t say how AT&T would like to see the potential fifth principle worded.
Debate on net neutrality has grown friendlier in recent months, observed Cicconi and other panelists. Arguments have been more “constructive” and narrowly focused, the AT&T executive said. Debaters are “moving past the shouting match,” agreed Harold Feld, legal director of Public Knowledge. However, that doesn’t mean there’s any less need for neutrality regulation by either Congress or the commission, he said. Parties will remain in an “extended period of detente” and uncertainty until the government makes clear rules, said Amazon.com Vice President Paul Misener.
With the change in administrations the discussion on net neutrality has shifted, panelists said. The debate is “no longer about not having regulation, but about whether we can have intelligent regulation,” said Mark Lloyd, vice president of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
Regulation probably will come from the FCC, not Congress, said Feld. Congress tends to take a more reactive role, he said. Although some bills probably will be introduced, their objective will most likely be to pressure the FCC, not necessarily to create law, he said. It’s the expert agency on the issue and has authority to act, said Cicconi.
Supporters of neutrality rules disagreed whether adding a fifth FCC principle is the best approach. Clear, bright- line rules would provide more certainty than a new principle, Feld said. Amazon.com would prefer legislation, however, a fifth principle could clarify the FCC’s nondiscrimination policy, said Misener.
Some panelists cautioned the new government against hasty regulation. Before regulating, policymakers should do a cost analysis to ensure they don’t harm other policy goals, said President Lawrence Spiwak of the Phoenix Center. For example, net neutrality rules could raise entry costs for broadband providers, spoiling rural deployment efforts, he said.
Neutrality rules shouldn’t preemptively ban network owners from taking up usage or other new pricing models, said Cicconi. The lawfulness of usage models was raised last week (CD June 18 p14) in a bill introduced by Rep. Eric Massa, D-N.Y. Done properly, it’s not unfair to charge high- bandwidth users more than low-bandwidth users, Cicconi said. The government mustn’t mandate a system where low-bandwidth users are subsidizing high-bandwidth users, he said.