On the recordApril 15, 2016
This one is a little more insidious than the last one because what it does is precisely what the gentleman says it does. It says, ``Nothing in this act can affect the FCC's authority to act in the public interest, convenience, or necessity.'' And he is right. That term of art is all over communications law. Let me make that clear: all over communications--it is so broad, you can drive a rate-regulated truck back through it, a de facto after-the-fact regulation. And that is the point. When you give the bureaucracy wide-open language that says ``in the public interest,'' it sounds good on its face, but the practical impact for someone who wants to regulate, it is on their own authority, they go, well, we think that rate is in the public interest to bring down after the fact. See, then what we have done is empower others unelected to make decisions based on a term of art which, while it may be pervasive, is also wide open. That is what we are trying to avoid here, Mr. Chairman. See, the FCC could say, we are not going to rate regulate unless we want to rate regulate because we will determine on our own whether it is in the public interest to do so. All that sounds good, ``public interest'' sounds good, and it is good and it is an important part of our law, but in this case, remember where we start. Until Chairman Wheeler was directed, in effect, by the White House to treat the Internet like an old utility, none of this was regulated.…





