In addition to the flash mobs at Target, another rally took place in front of a corporate bad actor last week. A couple busloads of activists descended on Google headquarters and protested their new net neutrality policy, which would allow for discrimination on wireless Internet and also special “managed services” from telecom carriers. They delivered a petition with 300,000 signatures opposed to Google and Verizon’s joint policy agreement.
Google claims that their position on net neutrality has not shifted, but clearly they have made a business decision to cooperate with Verizon. But what can we make of the White House’s apparent stance from last week to let the FCC decide on this issue, while supporting in principle the broad imprint of net neutrality across all broadband outlets, including wireless?
While keeping in mind that the off-the-record comment of support for wireless net neutrality was made by an unnamed aide, you can draw basically two conclusions from the White House statements, according to Marvin Ammori, a professor at the University of Nebraska and an expert in cyberlaw and telecom policy.
One is that the White House is simply not being truthful about their support, and giving the FCC the authority to kill net neutrality so they can plausibly deny any role. There have been some rumors of back-channel conversations between top Administration officials and FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to essentially do nothing as industry sets their own standards. The most compelling data point for this theory is the fact that Ivan Seidenberg, the CEO of Verizon, is also the head of the Business Roundtable. A couple months back, he publicly criticized the Obama Administration for contributing to a depressed business climate, and White House officials afterward made a show of catering to his concerns. Certainly, one of those concerns was net neutrality, and according to some rumors, Seidenberg demanded that the White House cave on that or he would step up his campaign of demonizing them as anti-business. You haven’t really heard much from the Business Roundtable in the last month.
The second theory that Ammori highlights is that “the White House is refusing to give the FCC Chairman political cover for his dithering weakness.” There’s compelling data to consider here as well. Genachowski’s reign at the FCC has been characterized by an almost desperate need to have cover for his decisions. He tried to broker a deal with industry to get them on board for broadband regulations. He responded to public outcry by dropping the secret meetings. He’s twisted with the winds of public opinion and pressure from lobbyists at almost every step. According to Ammori, “The Chairman is telling everyone that he is moving slow on net neutrality because he needs more and more political cover, and keeps asking everyone he meets to say nice things about him in public–from Silicon Valley to consumer groups to Congressmen. Then, after people say nice things, he doesn’t follow through,frustrating all his supposed allies who supported him publicly, and then (because he caved to the carriers) he asks the carriers also to say nice things about him.”
Under this theory, the White House is cutting Genachowski off, forcing him to make the decision without any political cover from them. They’re implicitly saying that he doesn’t need any further authority or back-up, whether from the White House or Congress, to institute the rules necessary to regulate broadband. “He doesn’t need Congress or the White House and has more than enough support in both, even if the support isn’t unanimous,” Ammori said. “He is the head of an independent agency. He is his own swing vote and can take care of net neutrality tomorrow with calling a solid net neutrality proposal up for a vote. He just refuses to put the issue on the FCC’s agenda – as Chairman, he controls the agenda.”
This reading suggests that the quotes made public about the FCC being an independent agency and support for wireless net neutrality were directed at the FCC itself, and particularly its chairman. They throw the ball squarely into the FCC’s court, making them responsible for the policy.
Now, there’s no reason that both of these can’t be true – that the topspin lob over to the FCC represents a desire to get the policy done quickly and correctly AND plausibly deniability for whatever transpires. But if you believe that the FCC has basically been hiding behind the need for a political grand bargain, you can read the White House statement as telling them, “No, this is your responsibility, don’t drag us into it, do your job.” Either way, it’s true that, as Ammori said, “the White House provided no public cover for the FCC Chairman to accept the loopholes advanced by the carriers and Google.” That’s a positive outcome, for now. It’s up to the FCC to follow through.
UPDATE: Four House Democrats have written a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, calling on him to reject the Google-Verizon joint policy framework. The Democrats are Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Jay Inslee (D-WA), Ed Markey (D-MA) and Mike Doyle (D-PA).
