Don’t Act Surprised by How Net Neutrality Rules Were Written

[Commentary] The Johnson report on how the Federal Communications Commission arrived at its decision to reclassify Internet Service Providers as common carriers under Title II is a 30 page version of that wonderful 20 seconds in Casablanca—Inspector Renault says “I’m shocked, shocked, to find that gambling going on in here” and then is provided his winnings—except that it completely lacks the Inspector’s self-awareness of its own comedy. A completely political document professing shock at discovering circumstantial evidence of politics inside the beltway? That’s pretty darn amusing.

There are two tragedies here. Neither involve actions by the FCC. The first is that taxpayer dollars were spent gathering information (including taking up FCC staff time) and writing the report, when the Committee said nothing that could not be gleaned by spending a buck to buy the Wall Street Journal story on the same subject. The other tragedy is the over investment of political capital on Title II, in ways that cause us to under invest in considering other issues. I admit to being in an exceedingly small minority that believes both the benefits and costs of the decision are exaggerated. For me, there are three core broadband questions: how do we deploy affordable, abundant bandwidth everywhere, how do we get everyone on, and how do we use the broadband platform to better deliver public goods and services? When we address those questions well, we improve the economic and civic prospects of our communities. The Johnson Report does nothing to help with those challenges. Rather, it is taxpayer-funded political theater—comedic yes, but not enough to justify the price–that distracts us from the important and more productive tasks required for leadership in the global information economy.

[Blair Levin is a Non-Resident Fellow at the Brookings Institute Metropolitan Policy Project]