FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed a net neutrality plan for the agency to vote on Dec. 21. FCC's Baker slams Net neutrality plan

Republican Federal Communications Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker is a vocal critic of the Net neutrality proposal unveiled last week by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski – and she only plans to get louder in the run-up to the agency’s meeting in two weeks.

“I’m afraid we are endangering a really important agenda. . . by pushing forward with a partisan, big-government regulatory issue that has no immediate need for us to act,” Baker told POLITICO about the net neutrality proposal, which would force broadband providers to treat all Web traffic equally.


Baker is planning to go on the offensive against Genachowski’s proposal. On Monday, Baker’s staff discussed ways to publicly express her criticism of the Net neutrality plan. Baker said she may pen op-ed pieces in the two weeks leading up to the agency’s meeting on December 21, when all five commissioners will vote on the proposal.

Robert McDowell, Baker’s fellow Republican on the Democratic-led panel, also gave Genachowski’s proposal a tongue-lashing last week. McDowell called the Net neutrality plan a “highly interventionist course” and criticized Genachowski for pushing it forward despite staunch opposition from lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

The two Republican commissioners have criticized the lack of transparency with the proposal, which will not be put out for public comment before the agency votes on the issue. Baker received a copy of Genachowski’s Net neutrality plan just before midnight on Tuesday, hours before the chairman gave a speech outlining the core principles of the new framework.

“We’re still in our preliminary assessment as to what it says, what it does, what the implications are, which is another reason why McDowell and I say it should be put out for comment,” Baker said. “For something this major, we’re trying to figure out what the implications are.”

In response, a senior FCC official said “the draft order was circulated to all of the commissioners a full three weeks in advance of the vote, a courtesy that Chairman Genachowski has consistently extended.”

“I'm sure that Commissioner Baker can appreciate hard-working FCC staff burning the midnight oil—that's exactly what it took to get a draft order circulated,” said the official. “We are particularly perplexed by Commissioner Baker's call for yet more time, given that it took her less than 24 hours to read the order and publicly declare her flat opposition to the proposal.”

Net neutrality is a policy issue that’s been publicly dissected and discussed at length, the official added, pointing out that the agency has held “hundreds of meetings and numerous public workshops” on the topic over the last 14 months and “even released a text of the proposed rules.”

Meanwhile, McDowell is also working on a strategy to further air his concerns.

“Commissioner McDowell has been speaking and writing about net neutrality issues for several years now – beginning with his dissent on the ‘open access’ component in the 700 MHz Order in July 2007,” said Angela Giancarlo, McDowell’s chief of staff and senior legal advisor, referring to McDowell’s vote against an FCC order that applied some open-Internet principles to valuable airwaves auctioned off by the government. “It's a safe bet that he will continue to do so.”

Full details of the plan have not been publicly released because the commissioners are still deliberating.

FCC rules do not allow stakeholders are to visit the commissioners to discuss the proposal one week ahead of the meeting date. As a result, interested parties have until Dec. 14 to express their views.

“It’s a limited amount of time for us to assess the ramifications of the document,” Baker said.

Genachowski had previously proposed reclassifying high-speed Internet under Title II of the 1996 Communications Act, which would hold broadband service providers to some of the stringent rules applied to phone companies. That idea drew harsh criticism from Republicans and some Democrats on Capitol Hill.

Genachowski’s proposal released last week does not seek to reclassify broadband, instead continuing to hold broadband providers to Title I rules. While that has alleviated some concerns from the Hill, Republicans still question the need for regulations under any title.

“The chairman has moved it from a Title II, which was a nuclear-war-type option, to a Title I option and says this is a compromise,” said Baker. “It’s a coalition of the coerced because these companies still don’t want it, they still don’t think it’s right.”

“Something that has gone from worse to bad doesn’t make it good policy,” she said.

The FCC official pointed out that the proposal received wide support after Genachowski released it last week.

“We are gratified by the broad support this proposal continues to receive—including from leading Internet and technology companies, founders and investors, consumer and public interest groups, unions, civil rights organizations, and broadband providers,” said the official. “It’s time to move forward.”