City broadband ISPs: PLEEEEASE don't do 'Title II' net neutrality

No less than 43 small ISPs have written to US watchdog the FCC [PDF] asking that it not introduce Title II legislation later this month.

According to the broadband slingers, who hail from 16 states of America and have on average just over 4,000 subscribers each, reclassifying internet providers as common carriers will cause them large additional costs in compliance and legal advice.

The companies note they are "strong supporters" of net neutrality and an open internet, but are "staunchly opposed" to FCC chairman Tom Wheeler's plan to use Title II legislation to resolve a question over how internet access can be regulated.

A big part of the argument for the proposed rules is to prevent ISPs from abusing their position to force additional fees on video-streaming websites and other content companies that want to access to the ISPs' subscribers.

This fear does not apply to small ISPs, however, the companies claim, since they do not have sufficient market power.

"All of the undersigned face competition from one or more wireline ISPs, and we compete hard to attract and serve customers who would depart to our competitors if we engage in any business practices that interfere with their Internet experience," the letter argues.

Price controls?

The companies are most concerned about the same things that were outlined by FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai yesterday in a press conference: that the rules as outlined (they have not been made public) would allow for price controls, describing the FCC's assurance that it wouldn't do so as "at best, cold comfort"; and that the ability for customers and other internet companies to make formal complaints about their ISPs would lead to a huge increase in legal fights and compliance requirements.

In short, applying Title II would cause them greater costs that they would then have to pass on to customers.

As such, they ask that the FCC ditch the Title II plan. Knowing that is not going to happen, the letter requests some changes to the current plan: "forebear" the parts that would potentially allow for rate regulation; exempt small businesses from new transparency obligations; and ensure that smaller ISPs are "not forced into paying higher fees based on the telecommunications rate."

Wrong, wrong, you're all wrong!

Of course, this being net neutrality, pro-net neutrality people are falling over themselves to insist that everything will be fine.

In a blog post on the issue of potential rate regulation in the new rules, Harold Feld of open internet advocate Public Knowledge, claims that the full introduction of sections 201 and 202 make no real difference to the FCC's powers since it already has the power to force price changes under the current section 706 legislation.

He also argues that the fact that because the FCC will not include the sections 203, 204 and 205 means that it would not be able to do what people fear. A court case back in 2003 created the precedent, according to Feld, that if the FCC "forebears" those section it "no longer has authority to engage in traditional rate regulation".

Other net neutrality snippets that have appeared in the past 24 hours include:

• Former FCC chair Michael Powell claiming in a blog post that "Title II public utility approach is the worst possible way to go" and arguing that the recent Congressional effort to pay new legislation is the best way forward.
• A letter [PDF] from a number of net neutrality advocates "strongly supporting" the current Title II plans (as far as we understand them because, yes, they are still secret).
• The Washington Post noticing two days after our story that net neutrality is heading down the Benghazi partisan rabbit hole. ®