FCC Commissioner Michael Copps Explains Public Interest In Regulating Internet (VIDEO)

Net netrality won't be achieved "without a fight," according to FCC Commissioner Michael Copps.

Copps discusses open internet with Bill Moyers in an interview for "Bill Moyers Journal" that's set to air Friday, April 23.

Copps argues that because of the media shift online, it is in the public interest to regulate the administration of internet service.

Copps: This is a tough question for America right now. Here you've got this dynamic technology that thrives on openness,that thrives on innovation... and you don't want to regulate or artificially limit it. But at the end of the day, if that's where everything is moving, if that's where our national dialogue, if that's where our civic dialogue is moving, there is a public interest component to that....

I think at the end of the day, you have to come to that conclusion: we have a public interest in how this is used to inform and serve the American people.

The interview comes at a difficult time for the Federal Communications Commission.

Earlier this month, The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dealt a blow to the FCC when it ruled that under current law, the commission has limited power to regulate broadband service.

The ruling stemmed back to a 2008 decision by the FCC against Comcast for its move to "throttle," or monitor and selectively block the traffic of its broadband customers. The appeals court ruled that the FCC lacked the ability to regulate Comcast's broadband practices.

The FCC could void the effects of the appeals court's ruling by reclassifying broadband. While several Senators have expressed support for its reclassification, CNET's Margeurite Reardon says it's unlikely.

WATCH:

Comments

[floodberg]

10:25 PM on 05/06/2010

THIS ISN'T REGULATION: THE INTERNET JUST GOT SOLD
The Internet is the new MSM

Under FCC ruling, ISPs have a right to slow down any kind of material, from any website. This is an insidious method to affect our ability to access content. 'Special interests' will pay ISPs for it to target certain websites or media. 'Cookie tracking' will be massive.

It's not 'censorship,' but it walks and talks just like that duck. 'Regulation' is targeted to achieve certain purposes. This is a fire sale. There's another huge payday if this stands; they just got a small taste of what's waiting.

Obama's campaign 2009 accepted millions from TimeWarner, Google,
MSN and others. Congress and Obama took $123 Million this quarter from the communications lobby. Healthcare, insurers, and the oil lobby were grateful as well; $1 billion this quarter in lobbying.

Think it's crazy? I outed a lobbyist/lawyer on the FCC thread who
was admittedly hired to 'convince' us that 'free markets can regulate themselves.' (He's not alone. I'm working on others.) Big money's trying to avoid a voter backlash against incumbents.

The internet is worth millions to our legislators. That's very, very bad for us. EU Freedom of Speech protects the internet. Our Freedom of Speech has been bought and paid for.

Finance controls media content and thus controls Americans. MSM was sold, and so was the internet.

This is a deal-breaker. Tell your legislators and your President.

(Links available.)

[Brett Glass]

04:42 PM on 04/25/2010

FCC Commissioner Copps is the same Commissioner who went nuclear over the Janet Jackson "nipplegate" incident (in which, in fact, no nipple was exposed; she was wearing a pastie, for Heaven's sake!). Given his zeal to regulate the content that we see on TV, should we allow him to regulate the Internet? Methinks not. Right now, the Internet is unregulated and uncensored. But if the FCC seizes control of it and begins to regulate it, restrictions on content are not far behind. "Network neutrality" would be the camel's nose in the tent.

[floodberg]

12:28 AM on 05/07/2010

They've got control; Obama has to step in and he has the power to give the internet back to us. However, he and Congress have already gotten paid, so we have to put the pressure on now, or live with it.

[AndyWright68]

11:32 AM on 04/22/2010

History is full of examples of government regulations that had effects very different from what their drafters intended. The ICC, which was created in 1887 to regulate the railroads. The Interstate Commerce Act was strikingly similar to today’s network neutrality proposals: it prohibited discrimination by railroads toward their customers and created the ICC to enforce the regulations.

The very first ICC chairman was a railroad ally, and the railroads quickly gained full control of the commission. By the early 20th century, it was using its power to restrict competition and raise prices. When the trucking industry emerged in the 1930s, the railroads lobbied to extend the ICC’s authority to all surface transportation in order to reduce competition from that sector. By 1970, things had gotten so bad that none other than Ralph Nader called for the ICC’s abolition, describing it as “a forum at which transportation interests divide up the national transportation market.” The ICC was supposed to protect consumers from the railroads, but in practice, it mostly protected the railroads from competition.

The fundamental problem is that any network neutrality regulation Congress passes will be enforced by the FCC, and no one has more influence over the FCC than telecom companies. It’s simply naive to expect an agency that has repeatedly promoted the interests of large telecom companies to suddenly become strong advocates for the rights of consumers. If Congress passes network neutrality regulations, the FCC will almost certainly interpret them in a way that renders them toothless.

[Sacchinftw]

12:00 PM on 04/22/2010

The Internet is quite different from railroads; don't change the subject.

History has presented many instances of government regulations failing as well as succeeding, this goes without saying. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to how government should or shouldn't approach private industry and to claim that total free market economics is somehow the end-all solution for every situation is inherently wrong.

And it's extremely naive to assume telecom companies would become strong advocates for the rights of consumers.

[AndyWright68]

01:22 PM on 04/22/2010

Change the subject? The subject is government guiding our supposedly free markets. And no there never will be a perfect system but a free market system will be a hundred times better than a government controlled system. this government has proved this over and over again.

And what are these successful regulations. Not that I am for zero regulation. But I am strictly against over regulation which this government is guilty of on nearly all fronts. Especially the housing market. It was easy credit, government guarantees through Freddie and Fannie and price fixing by the Fed that cause the housing bubble. Now you want this same inept government to manage the internet. You are hopeless.

[floodberg]

12:35 AM on 05/07/2010

Ok, Sacchinftw, on this example I quoted (above) the amount of money that lobby just paid our legislators and President last quarter. In order, it was misc. business, health, oil and communications. We know health was because of HCR, oil to pay forward the oil spill, and here's communications.

Make the case that that sort of money doesn't 'help' the FCC and legislators lean in a convenient profitable direction. I'll take lack of reply for a win.

[AndyWright68]

11:31 AM on 04/22/2010

Even worse, the telecoms could do what the railroads did a century ago and transform network neutrality regulations into a barrier to entry for new firms. Filing network neutrality complaints against competitors could become a useful harassment technique, forcing entrepreneurs to waste valuable time pleading their case before the FCC. This, too, has ample precedent. For example, during the 1960s, AT&T used regulatory barriers to delay the entry of MCI into the long-distance market by about a decade.

Our top priority in the broadband market should be to promote more competition. We should therefore be wary of enacting new regulations that could tie up new entrants in red tape. There is no reason to think that network neutrality is in imminent danger, and so it would be foolish to enact major new regulations based on purely speculative dangers.

[Sacchinftw]

11:52 AM on 04/22/2010

Except that there's nothing in the current proposed Net Neutrality legislation that would bar entry of new firms. In fact, the current status of ISPs bar entry of new firms.

[AndyWright68]

12:09 PM on 04/22/2010

You missed the first line. It opens the door to manipulate the rules just like the SEC is controlled by the crooks on Wall St. Nothing good will come of government control over our now working system.

[AndyWright68]

12:13 PM on 04/22/2010

Right now the wealthiest of companies can't manipulate the system. Put government regulators on the scene and it will be run by the top two corporations. They will no doubt create a system that will inevitably create hurdles to prevent competition. Let's not allow the biggest corporations to control our access through the government.

[AndyWright68]

10:24 AM on 04/22/2010

Can't we have just ONE thing the government is not controlling. Just 1. The government needs to leave the internet alone. It's not broken. Why do people insist on having the government involved in every aspect of our lives? Net Neutrality is a scam. There is no reason to regulate a system that has ZERO problems. Every time the government gets involved and regulates this and that we all lose. The government needs to keep their sticky hands off the internet. It's the only thing we have not distorted by ridiculous government regulations.

[vampbella09]

10:33 AM on 04/22/2010

Because net nuetrality ensures ALL people have equal access to the Internet. If it net neutrality is taken away than a teared internet will rise up and disenfranchise the poor, liberal websites or anything deemed "dangerous" by the telecom firms. Governenment is the Ref on teh field ensuring fair play. Government as a role here to ensure equal access.

[AndyWright68]

10:51 AM on 04/22/2010

Disenfranchise the poor? Sorry but the internet is not a human right. It is a service that must be paid for and the majority is paid for by advertising which is why internet access is so cheap. I was going to create an ISP that offered free broadband wireless access and a free laptop. I would pay for it by having 3 minute commercials every 15 minutes of free high speed internet access. If net neutrality passes I will be out of business. Providing the poor with an internet guarantee by the government will prevent them from ever having free internet.

Net Neutrality is control and will just be the beginning. There is no problem to fix. Because one day an unknown ISP may possibly limit access. Sounds like our excuses to bomb and invade other countries that pose no threat to us. Well, one day they may possible be able to acquire the technology to maybe build a nuclear weapon that they could possibly use or maybe sell to someone who could possibly maybe use it yadda yadda yadda. So we better go in now and blow them up into bits and pieces.

Net Neutrality will do nothing but skew free market competition and limit access for all of us.

NET NEUTRALITY MUST BE STOPPED AT ALL COSTS.

[Sacchinftw]

10:35 AM on 04/22/2010

You realize that the Internet as we know it now, is under a Net Neutral policy, right?

[AndyWright68]

11:08 AM on 04/22/2010

No. Please send my that piece of legislation. I must have missed it.

[floodberg]

12:48 AM on 05/07/2010

And how does all that money paid to Obama's campaign, and our legislators and Obama in lobbying, figure into it? (posted above) What, they paid it out of human kindness? Answer that one; I'd love to hear it.

[PeteBogs]

10:22 AM on 04/22/2010

It sounds like the FCC are afraid of becoming (even more) irrelevant.

[AndyWright68]

10:52 AM on 04/22/2010

Right!

[lastpost]

10:13 AM on 04/22/2010

Net netrality won't be achieved "without a fight,"

All have the inalienable right of free speech. Ask the Supreme Court. Yet some (with that same Court’s compliance), seek the inalienable right to alienate the entitlement of others.

[AndyWright68]

10:19 AM on 04/22/2010

Net Neutrality should NEVER be achieved. The government has no business messing with a system that works just fine.

[Sacchinftw]

10:36 AM on 04/22/2010

The Internet, from inception to now has always been net neutral. Maybe you should do a little reading as to what Net Neutrality means.

[floodberg]

12:49 AM on 05/07/2010

The FCC just changed the internet from a public venue to a 'for profit' one, and the regulation validates that concept. I want FOS on the internet, just like the EU countries do it. If I want biased media, I can turn on MSM.

[Timothy Murray]

10:03 AM on 04/22/2010

Michael Copps is one of the good guys. He stood up to Michael Powel, and he supports Net Neutrality. Net neutrality is an approach to limiting the opportunity for censorship by corporate media. What if Verizion Fios refused to carry the Huffington Post the way Verizon Mobile previously refused to carry pro choice text messages. The FCC wants to establish reasonable regulation and notification requirements so that consumers at least know when they are being blocked from access to information the ISP finds distasteful. And Michael Copps is a leader in the right direction. The recent court ruling is a catastrophe, as is the ruling that corporations can contribute unlimited funds to politicians. Together these two cases now make it legal for Exxon to pay time warner cable to block access to MSNBC.com and FOXnews.com. If we do not find a way to bring Netneutrality back to the table our internet will be worse and more censored than China's.

[floodberg]

12:52 AM on 05/07/2010

You're willing to accept a 'limited opportunity for censorship?' Man, you have low standards; that hasn't worked out well for MSM, and it resulted in the massive growth of online news sources. Why do you think the communications industry gave Obama and the Congress a massive infusion of cash, just behind healthcare and oil? Make all speech protected under FOS on the internet; give internet news the same protections as MSM, and let the special interests eat this one. The insurers are happy, big oil is thrilled at our legislators; they can do without this one.

[Dante in Madison]

09:56 AM on 04/22/2010

Net Neutrality Now. Information wants to be free.

[benji85]

10:00 AM on 04/22/2010

not wants, NEEDS

[freedom4allau]

10:11 AM on 04/22/2010

MUST

[AndyWright68]

10:18 AM on 04/22/2010

Net Neutrality is a scam and the government needs to leave the internet alone. It's been working just fine.

[Sacchinftw]

10:37 AM on 04/22/2010

I agree with part of your point: Net Neutrality has been working great for us thus far, lets keep it.

[boscobear]

09:29 AM on 04/22/2010

I have a novel idea--let the people decide for themselves what they believe. Once the govt gets their hands on this, they'll ruin it.

[benji85]

09:39 AM on 04/22/2010

That is a great idea, and why ISP shouldn't be able to limit bandwidth to websites either.

All data is equal and needs to be treated as such by both the private and public entities.

[AndyWright68]

10:28 AM on 04/22/2010

ISP's should be able to do what they want. If we don't like it we will go to another ISP and if their is none there will be one. It's called competition and it has worked beautifully for centuries. The government needs to stay out of it completely.

[Sacchinftw]

10:15 AM on 04/22/2010

Net Neutrality is letting the people decide for themselves...

[AndyWright68]

10:26 AM on 04/22/2010

Net Neutrality is government control. If ISP's are not providing the service we demand another ISP will. The government needs to stay out of it.

[Ozarks]

09:16 AM on 04/22/2010

By the end of the day it sounds like Copps is in AT&T, ComCast, Charter etc and other big media's pocket.

[garymc8]

09:06 AM on 04/22/2010

Because the main stream media is a constant flow of LIES, millions have fled to other sources for news and now you want to start the whole disgusting mess over on the net? Pass..

[DannyGee]

09:01 AM on 04/22/2010

Two thoughts:

1. I hate when people say "at the end of the day". Those that use this line tend to say it constantly.

2. Welcome to China folks.

[AndyWright68]

10:33 AM on 04/22/2010

"moving forward" is another one. How many are really moving backwards? Seriously, who is moving to the past?

[Sacchinftw]

10:40 AM on 04/22/2010

The entire concept of Conservatism, both in its root ideological meaning and our political interpretation of it, means to move backwards and 'conserve' the past.

[medic628]

08:58 AM on 04/22/2010

It does not matter what they say. To control the net is another way to control the masses. They prototype is in place in China. The people who running the world need that.

[NomadicView]

08:55 AM on 04/22/2010

The Internet is Murdoch's next frontier.