Photo

Last week, the Federal Communications Commission voted to regulate Internet service as a public utility, reclassifying broadband providers under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 and subjecting them to stricter rules. Republicans and many broadband providers have criticized the decision, arguing that it was driven by the president and gives the federal government too much control, draws on dated laws and will result in subjective interpretations of broad mandates.

Sure sounds familiar.

Eight decades ago, when Congress passed the Communications Act of 1934 and created the F.C.C., Republican lawmakers objected just as loudly, and with similar concerns.

Two senators — Lester J. Dickinson, Republican of Iowa, and Thomas D. Schall, Republican of Minnesota — strongly opposed the 1934 legislation. They called President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration “desperate” and overreaching. The senators said the act was an attempt to “censor the press” by seeking to regulate telegraph companies and broaden the Radio Act of 1927, according to news coverage at the time from The New York Times.

In February 1934, President Roosevelt had asked Congress to create the F.C.C. to centralize authority over radio, telephone and telegraph services. On Feb. 26 of that year, The Times, on its front page, reported the recommendations made by the president and a committee he had created to study electronic communications:

The committee’s study led it to believe that rates for the various services could be lowered through regulation of company profits, overhead expenses and intercompany charges. The committee felt, further, that a single independent government agency could prevent discrimination, regulation of annual depreciation charges and extension of service to localities and homes not now served.

Photo

By June, legislation along the lines of President Roosevelt’s vision passed both the House and Senate and was signed into law by the president on June 19. But leading up to that, The Times reported on strong Republican dissent.

On March 18, 1934, the paper quoted Senator Dickinson of Iowa as saying: “Only a united front by the press of the nation can halt this new plan to gag them. The newspapers of the United States must prevent the fourth attempt to Hitlerize the press of the nation.”

Senator Schall of Minnesota spoke similarly, calling the F.C.C. bill for telegraph and wireless companies a “national libel law.” As The Times wrote:

He asserted the bill established the proposed commission as a censorship agency and that the result of the bill would be the holding up of press dispatches until “a censor from the Federal Communications Commission passes on the subject-matter.” He added: “Of course, since it is necessary for a telegraph company to secure a license from this commission before it can operate, this in itself, since the license is revocable, is censorship in every sense of the word.”

Still, when the law took effect on July 1, 1934, reaction was more moderately characterized in The Times. As a story published on that date read, “Leaders Foresee No Material Shifts in Broadcasting — Much Depends Upon Personnel of Commission.” It speculated that the impact of the new act would depend on whether there was a Democratic or Republican majority.

That same sentiment was expressed repeatedly last week, with lawmakers and nonpartisan experts alike wondering how enforcement of some new rules might change based on which party holds the majority.

As Louis G. Caldwell, former general counsel of the F.C.C., told The Times in July 1934 about the communications act: “Regulation under the new law will be as good or as bad as the personnel.”

Today, as the public awaits the release of the full text of the new 2015 rules that will govern broadband Internet service, similar concerns are being raised.

Testifying before a House subcommittee last week about F.C.C.’s vote, Robert D. Atkinson, founder and president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a technology policy organization, warned of changed policies under changing leadership. “It’s unclear how future commissions will treat this authority,” he said. “One of the most vibrant sectors of our economy becomes unpredictable from one administration to the next.”

Read more reactions to the 1934 legislation here.