Former FCC Chairman Criticizes 'Religious' Commitment To Net Neutrality (VIDEO)

While the FCC and the White House have both remained relatively mum on Google and Verizon's proposal, former Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell discussed net neutrality and the two companies' "open Internet" policy framework on Fox Business yesterday.

Powell, appointed to the FCC by President Clinton and made chairman of the FCC by President George W. Bush, weighed in on the controversial Google and Verizon framework that critics argue could create a tiered Internet and be "the end of the Internet as we know it."

He said that the FCC had invited the two companies to draw up this framework.

"This Google Verizon agreement, which is really less of an agreement and more of a proposal to the government of how to resolve this controversy has really been invited by the government itself," Powell argued. "The FCC and members of congress are telling both sides, 'Look, go out and find a consensus, go out and find common ground.' Here are two companies that have been diametrically opposed on this issue for years coming together to try to provide a constructive answer and I think that's at the government's invitation."

In his view, "the government's own proposed [net neutrality] rules look a lot like the Google Verizon proposal."

He also criticized the almost religious fervor of net neutrality advocates. While he agreed "there are certain core elements of the open Internet you want to preserve," he said the issue of net neutrality "became highly politicized and almost religion during the campaign."

"The Silicon Valley netroot community, a very powerful community, a very important constituency to this administration, is strongly, almost religiously committed to this issue in a very coordinated way and that provides a lot of power and impetus to keep this issue moving and to push the more extreme versions of net neutrality," Powell said.

He later joked the Internet was "nirvana."

He also addressed concerns over the government's involvement in regulating the Internet.
"There are reasons to be concerned about making sure that the fundamentals of the Internet--that is its open ended nature--continue to be being preserved," he stated. But, he warned, "be careful what you wish for with respect to the government in fast moving industries...I've never been confident in the government's ability to both predict and to move quickly enough to maintain relevancy and accuracy in the regulation of markets like this."

The current FCC Commissioner Michael Copps has issued a short statement on the Verizon-Google proposal, writing, "Some will claim this announcement moves the discussion forward. That's one of its many problems. It is time to move a decision forward--a decision to reassert FCC authority over broadband telecommunications, to guarantee an open Internet now and forever, and to put the interests of consumers in front of the interests of giant corporations." The White House had remained surprisingly quiet--a White House spokeswoman merely said the President "supports an open Internet that drives innovation, investment, free speech and consumer choice" and "[supports] the FCC's process." (Read more reactions here)

Do you agree with Powell's stance? Why or why not? Weigh in below. Read more about net neutrality and the Google Verizon proposal here.

WATCH:

Comments

[talos72]

01:45 PM on 08/24/2010

I am not sure how much credibility Michael Powell has over his foot dragging few years back with regards to media ownrership and monopolization of TV and radio stations by big corporations. No surprise about his views on net neutrality.

[sarapy]

10:18 AM on 08/24/2010

a video on this subject is here :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBO5dh9qrIQ&feature=player_embedded

[bgofca]

03:31 AM on 08/24/2010

i don't trust anything this bushie fcc person has to say. when he was the head of the fcc he was so worked up over a few cuss words that it became ridiculous. there are real problems in the world. it would be better to stop the hatred and the false indignation when someone says a word that almost everyone uses anyway. he only got his job because of his daddy and his daddy sold his sole to the devil.

[ef157]

10:08 PM on 08/23/2010

Michael, like good job Brownie, should just go away.

[rikster]

07:01 PM on 08/23/2010

I want to know how much he was paid to convert over the air analog TV to digital. it really stinks. I can't get local stations that are 11 miles away.

[dwill123]

10:05 AM on 08/23/2010

There needs to be credible discussion of benefits (if any) a tiered Internet might offer.

[pat2 718]

06:27 PM on 09/11/2010

There was some discussion, back when people were implementing QoS ("quality of service") protocols. It might be useful to dig that up because the focus seemed very different. It centered on the need to get critical traffic through in times of an emergency, or latency-dependent data, at the expense of less important or less latency-dependent traffic. There was also discussion of how QoS features might assist in quelling a denial of service attack. There was some talk of paid access to higher QoS levels, which is a bit closer to the current concern.

Does anyone have pointers to past or (pragmatic, non-heated) current discussions?

The current concern is more about companies being able to drop or slow down content they disagree with, or competitor content, which is a bit different from tiering.

[lj9283]

10:03 PM on 08/22/2010

Powell was the one who deregulated the ISPs and caused this whole mess.

[joebaggadonuts]

11:33 AM on 08/22/2010

If Google & Verizon had invited a citizen's advocate to the discussion this would have been a done deal rather than just another piniata for every disaffected fear monger to take a swing at.

What the shadow masters want is fake neutrality and complete loss of privacy for everyone but themselves. Bringing this guy out to make you angry is part of the plan.

[Scott Adams]

10:28 AM on 08/22/2010

Like Powell said ""The Silicon Valley net root community, a very powerful community, a very important constituency to this administration, is strongly, almost religiously committed to this issue in a very coordinated way and that provides a lot of power and impetus to keep this issue moving and to push the more extreme versions of net neutrality," Powell said. Might he add also a very important engine to our economy and our future?
So, why would Silicon Valley where the most brilliant technology companies and minds in the World be against it? I'm with Silicon Valley, this is one industry where we still are the best in world and we have most talented companies and minds. AT&T and the like had nothing to do with developing the net and in fact have held us back to the point where we have some of the slowest broadband connections in the industrialized world. Powell’s argument is so they can “re-coup” their investments in broadband??B S. The phone companies Oligopolies have delivered ridiculous profits for years and were subsidized by the government and our tax dollars. Let’s suppose we just thank them for gauging us now and delivering dial tone for 100 years and take the pipes back and auction them off to companies that are willing to invest in better open broadband. I’m sure they are a bunch of businesses with the monopolies out of the way that are willing to do so.

[pat2 718]

04:48 PM on 09/11/2010

Just want to clarify the word "auction" here... If you mean "auction" in the sense of airwave spectrum, i.e. temporary, that might be safe (though not necessarily useful, see below). But we should not *sell off* our public interest in landlines. Handing over network infrastructure to private companies is the opposite of what we should do if we want to ensure they can't restrict traffic they don't like. We have some control over the phone lines and airwaves, the first due to public funding and the second due to common ownership.

The reason that pulling back phone lines from the phone companies may not do what you want is that it selectively disadvantages phone companies versus cable companies. Right now, phone companies provide valuable competition for cable companies. I wouldn't want that spoiled -- too many cable companies are already unresponsive to their customers and are already restricting content.

[rougebaisers]

07:56 AM on 08/22/2010

The government will be paid off, and corporations will begin to turn the internet into a reflection of life itself, the rich with everything, and to hell with the rest. Sleezeballs one and all. Sites like this one will suffer.

[Jack Barron]

04:40 AM on 08/22/2010

Michael Powell has no credibility on this issue, none.

[rougebaisers]

07:56 AM on 08/22/2010

Another bought and paid for lackey.

[mtrav]

11:36 AM on 08/22/2010

He has no credibility on any subject, period, end of story.

[EricBishop]

03:31 AM on 08/22/2010

Yeah, dude...why would people want their information not skewed or bottle-necked at the whim of corporations? Would people want an open interstate highway system instead of toll roads? Why would people want freedom of the seas instead of legalized piracy? Why would someone want to walk down the street and turn right or left without being beholden to someone else for their freedom of movement?

Google-Verizon...I'm holding my breath until you give me permission to consume any more or your air.

[rougebaisers]

07:57 AM on 08/22/2010

it is very possible to rid yourself of google. they are quite simply not needed.

[agxphoto]

01:39 AM on 08/22/2010

Powell did a horrible job as FCC chairman. I was hopeful for him, but disappointed in the results he failed to provide. I see from his latest stances that his pronouncements have gotten even worse.

[Doug Watt]

12:58 AM on 08/22/2010

Ha ha, Baby Huey Powell is still at work for Bushco.

[ibsteve2u]

08:45 PM on 08/21/2010

Guess I can understand why somebody who had the approval of both Clinton and Dubya would be critical of "a religious commitment"....gaining the approval of those guys requires selling your soul.

[Doug Watt]

12:59 AM on 08/22/2010

He's Colin Powell's son, he was a Legacy appointment and has nothing to merit his position.