The rest of the world is watching to see whether...

Tuesday. The danger, he said, is that a bad idea adopted by U.S. policymakers could get “amplified abroad” as teams at the ITU read everything the FCC writes. The open Title II docket has sent a “confusing message,” McDowell said, with the topic coming up in every conversation he has when traveling abroad and discussing World Conference on International Telecommunications issues. Foreign officials ask him: If the U.S. is seriously considering classifying a portion of the Internet as a common carrier, what’s wrong with the rest of the world considering it as well? And why don’t we then regulate more of the Internet? “Whether that was the original animal, that’s how it’s being sold” overseas, McDowell said. McDowell has long been critical of reclassifying broadband as a Title II service, advocating a “light touch” that encourages business investment and innovation. Commissioner Ajit Pai railed last month against “anachronistic laws” in the Telecom Act that don’t make sense in an IP-based marketplace, and pushed for closure of the Title II docket. McDowell is “absolutely right,” said Phoenix Center President Lawrence Spiwak. The long-standing policy of the U.S. is to not impose onerous regulations on the Internet, he said. While the docket is open, it sends a message both domestically and internationally that the U.S. is “not fully committed” to that policy, he said. “What is the purpose of having this docket if not to use this docket?” Spiwak asked. It’s a “sword of Damocles hanging over the industry’s head.” “This notion about sending a message to the rest of the world is utter nonsense,” said Harold Feld, senior vice president of Public Knowledge. “To suggest that delegates to the ITU cannot tell the difference between what is suitable for domestic policy and what is suitable for ITU jurisdiction does not appear to be supported by the facts on the ground.” Even if this were the case, it’s unlikely anyone making that argument would be swayed by an FCC decision to close the Title II inquiry at this point, he said. “If the FCC announced tomorrow it was closing the Title II docket, wouldn’t these same supporters of ITU jurisdiction argue that this was the consequence of political interference solely designed to circumvent ITU jurisdiction?” Communications lawyer Andrew Schwartzman disputed McDowell’s premise that Title II regulation means regulation of the Internet. That premise “is wrong,” he said. “What would be truly unsettling is if the United States were to drop its commitment to an open Internet.” Asked for key takeaways from his experience as a commissioner, McDowell said the wireless sector’s success has shown him that “light touch” regulation works. The commission should also avoid enacting policies that may be obsolete by the time they get out into the marketplace, he said. The commission should avoid making it harder for secondary markets to work, and respect antitrust law and concentrations of power that result in user harm, while also allowing spectrum that’s already in the market “to flow to its highest and best use,” he said.