Yesterday, FCC Chairman Genachowski announced his intent to launch a proceeding exploring a new regulatory framework for broadband services.  Since then, there’s been lots of commentary from industry (including our own statement here), Wall Street analysts, and pro-regulation advocates. Amidst all the storm and fury, I want to highlight an important passage in Chairman Genachowski’s statement:

“The issues presented by the Comcast decision are a test of whether Washington can work—whether we can avoid straw-man arguments and the descent into hyperbole that too often substitute for genuine engagement.”

At NCTA, we couldn’t agree more and pledge again that our industry will work constructively with the FCC, Congress and all policymakers to create an appropriate framework that preserves an open Internet and achieves the goals of the National Broadband Plan.

But as this important dialogue moves forward, it’s critical that we at least have a common understanding of some basic facts – perhaps the most basic being a common understanding of what the Internet is.

Which brings me to the odd “rebuttal” that Free Press issued today to comments by NCTA and others on the Chairman’s “third way” proposal. It includes these phrases:

“The ‘Internet’ is not the wires that deliver the content and applications, but the content itself.”

“We trust that the NCTA will be reassured by the FCC’s repeated assertions that they have absolutely no plans to regulate the Internet.  Being the expert agency for communications, the FCC recognizes that broadband communications services are not ‘the Internet’, contrary to NCTA’s deliberately misleading statements.”

Perhaps Free Press should take a closer look at the Communications Act – specifically section 230(f)(1), which was added by the 1996 Telecom Act:

“The term “Internet” means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.”

Nowhere in Congress’ definition does it describe the “Internet” as being the “content” provided over the networks rather than the networks themselves.  The Commission itself cited Congress’ network-based definition of the Internet in adopting its 2005 Policy Statement on Broadband Internet Access.

Congress used a similar network-based definition in the Broadband Data Improvement Act in 2008:

INTERNET.—The term ‘‘Internet’’ means collectively the myriad of computer and telecommunications facilities, including equipment and operating software, which comprise the interconnected world-wide network of networks that employ the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, or any predecessor successor protocols to such protocol, to communicate information of all kinds by wire or radio.

Likewise, the US Supreme Court has described the Internet as a “network of interconnected networks” (National Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Services) and as a “worldwide mesh or matrix of hundreds of thousands of networks, owned and operated by hundreds of thousands of people”(Reno v. ACLU).

Free Press may wish that the Internet was something else, but that does not make it true.  Let there be no doubt: When you regulate broadband networks, you are regulating the Internet.

[Editor's Note: Rick Chessen is Senior Vice President, Law & Regulatory Policy for NCTA. In addition, one sentence above was edited for clarity]

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said today that the FCC would start using a “third way” framework in order to regulate broadband.

You can find a PDF of The Third Way: A Narrowly Tailored Broadband Framework online. It’s also helpful to read this statement from General Counsel Austin Schlick.

We’ve just released a statement from NCTA President & CEO Kyle McSlarrow.

“We firmly believe that the case for new regulation of the Internet has not been made. Today’s competitive and dynamic broadband marketplace already operates according to openness principles that have broad industry consensus and serve consumers well. We support the goals and many recommendations of the National Broadband Plan. And, as we have repeatedly made clear, we are prepared to work constructively with the FCC, Congress and all policymakers to create an appropriate framework that preserves an open Internet and achieves the goals of the Broadband Plan.

“Given that context, the proposal to ‘reclassify’ broadband services is disappointing. We fully acknowledge and appreciate that Chairman Genachowski has outlined an approach designed to avoid the full regulatory impact of a Title II regime and that he has asked for comment and constructive alternatives, including inviting a continuing dialogue about solutions under Title I. We also understand the challenging jurisdictional questions before the Commission. However, any Title II approach is still fraught with legal uncertainty and practical consequences which pose real risks to our ability to provide the high-quality and innovative broadband services that our customers expect, thus undermining the very investment and innovation goals we share with Chairman Genachowski and upon which the National Broadband Plan depends.

“Nothing has occurred either in the marketplace or in broadband technology to change the fact that our broadband services are ‘information services,’ and not ‘telecommunications services’ that are regulated under a model designed for a previous era and for very different services. Thus, as part of the process outlined today by the Chairman, we will continue to make the case that the better course is to develop a solution that reflects the longstanding and bipartisan view that all components of the Internet should be subject at most to limited regulation under Title I.”

Here is some news coverage of the announcement.

• FCC Officials Lay Out ‘Third Way’ of Regulation
• FCC to Adopt “Title II Lite” Approach to Web Regulation
• FCC Seeks to Reclaim Powers After Losing Court Case to Comcast