The Statement: Obama and the Open Internet

On Monday, the most powerful voice in American politics has joined the fight over the future of the internet, and the fight will never be the same. President Obama called on the Federal Communications Commission to reclassify broadband as a public utility and to adopt the strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality, and the call changed the stakes of a battle that had been building for years. The statement is the November 2014 story, and the story is the lesson: the policies that shape the internet are too important to be left to the lobbyists.

The Statement is the subject of this article: what the President said, why he said it, how the FCC responded, and what it means for the future of the open internet. The statement came in a video released on Monday, November 10, and it put the White House squarely behind the strongest version of the net neutrality rules. This is the story of the statement, and the story is about the moment the open internet became a presidential issue.

1. The Video

The video was the medium, and the medium was the message. President Obama released a video statement on Monday, November 10, in which he asked the Federal Communications Commission to reclassify consumer broadband as a Title II telecommunications service, the legal foundation that would allow the strongest regulation of the internet service providers. The President spoke directly to the camera, and the directness was the point: this was not a policy memo, and this was a public demand.

The video was also the summary of the principles. The President said the internet should not favor some content over others, that no one should be able to pay to get their content delivered faster, and that the providers should not be allowed to block or throttle the traffic. The principles were the net neutrality rules, and the rules were the message. The video was the beginning, and the beginning was the strongest statement yet from the White House.

2. The Title

The title was the legal foundation, and the foundation was the fight. Title II was the section of the Communications Act that treated telephone companies as common carriers, the utilities that had to serve everyone equally. The President's call to reclassify broadband under Title II was the call to treat the internet providers the way the country treated the phone companies, and the treatment was the strongest possible regulation.

The title was also the battle line. The internet service providers, the cable companies, and the phone companies opposed the reclassification with all their resources, and the opposition was the politics. The companies argued that the reclassification would invite rate regulation and slow the investment in the networks, and the advocates argued that the reclassification was the only way to protect the open internet. The title was the legal question, and the legal question was the political fight.

3. The History

The history was the context, and the context was the fight. The net neutrality battle had been building for years: the FCC's earlier rules had been struck down by the courts, the providers had been caught blocking and throttling, and the agency had been trying to find a legal basis that would survive the review. The history had left the open internet in a state of legal uncertainty, and the uncertainty was the problem.

The history had also produced the public pressure. The FCC's earlier proposal had drawn a record number of public comments, more than four million, and the comments were the voice of the people, and the voice had been heard. The comedian John Oliver had turned the issue into a national conversation, and the conversation had become the movement. The history was the setup, and the setup was the moment.

4. The Pressure

The pressure was the politics, and the politics was the President's calculation. The White House had been quiet on the details of the net neutrality fight, and the quiet had frustrated the advocates, and the video was the end of the quiet. The President was responding to the pressure from the public, from the technology industry, and from the activists, and the response was the commitment.

The pressure was also on the FCC, and the FCC was the target. The agency was technically independent, and the President's statement did not have the force of law, and the independence was the nuance. The chairman of the FCC, Tom Wheeler, a former cable industry lobbyist, had been the object of the advocates' distrust, and the distrust was the context of his response. The pressure was the politics, and the politics was the test.

5. The Wheeler

The Wheeler was the character, and the character was the contradiction. Tom Wheeler had been appointed by the President, and he had spent his career in the telecommunications industry, and the advocates had assumed he would be the enemy of the open internet. The assumption had been challenged by the record: Wheeler had proposed rules that included a ban on blocking and throttling, and the proposal had fallen short of the full protection that the advocates wanted.

Wheeler's response to the President's statement was the careful dance of the independent regulator. He said he welcomed the President's input, and he said the FCC would make its own decision, and the balance was the message. The chairman who had been the lobbyist was now the target of the strongest pressure from the President, and the response would define his legacy. The Wheeler was the pivot, and the pivot was the story.

6. The Stakes

The stakes were the future of the internet, and the future was the argument. The open internet was the foundation of the modern economy, the platform for the startups, the innovators, and the voices that the old media had ignored. The providers were the gatekeepers of the foundation, and the gatekeepers had the power to favor their own services, to charge for the fast lanes, and to shape what the users could reach. The stakes were the power, and the power was the question.

The stakes were also the money, and the money was the lobbying. The providers spent tens of millions of dollars a year on the politics of the internet, and the spending was the measure of the importance. The fight over the rules was the fight over who would control the most important infrastructure of the century, and the control was the prize. The stakes were the future, and the future was the fight.

7. The Lesson

The lesson of the statement was about the power of the public voice, and the power was the four million comments. The issue that had been a technical debate among the lawyers and the lobbyists had become a national cause, and the cause had reached the White House, and the reaching was the democracy. The lesson was that the policies that shape the internet are too important to be left to the lobbyists, and the public had refused to leave them.

The lesson was also about the independence and the accountability. The FCC was independent, and the independence was the design, and the President's statement was the reminder that the independent agency still answered to the public. The chairman who had been the lobbyist was being held to the standard of the people who had spoken, and the standard was the politics. The lesson was the voice, and the voice was the power.

8. The Future

The future of the fight would be decided in the months ahead, and the future was the FCC's vote. The agency would write the final rules, and the rules would be the test of the President's statement, and the vote would come in the new year. The providers would fight, the courts would review, and the battle would continue, and the continuation was the nature of the politics. The future was the decision, and the decision was the moment.

The future was also the lesson in the making. The President had spoken, and the speaking had changed the terms of the debate, and the debate would shape the internet for a generation. The statement was the November 2014 story, and the story is the lesson: the policies that shape the internet are too important to be left to the lobbyists. The President spoke on Monday, and the future of the open internet will never be the same. The providers will fight the reclassification with every tool they have, and the fight is the measure of the stakes. The advocates will hold the line, and the FCC will write the rules, and the rules will be the compromise of the politics. The vote in the new year will be the next chapter, and the chapter is the test of the statement. The months ahead will be the test of the independence and the accountability, and the test is the story. The providers will fight the reclassification with every tool they have, and the fight is the measure of the stakes, and the stakes are the future of the open internet. The vote in the new year will be the next chapter, and the chapter is the moment when the statement becomes the rules.

Tags

#technology #business