Stung by reports of an intelligence briefing on unsubstantiated claims of Trump campaign cooperation with Russia going back years and salacious sexual allegations against the President-elect, Donald Trump fired off a series of Tweets late Tuesday (Jan. 10) and early Wednesday (Jan. 11), culminating with: "Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to 'leak' into the public. One last shot at me. Are we living in Nazi Germany?"

Trump has challenged the intelligence agencies' general agreement that Russia intervened in the U.S. election in an effort to favor the Republican candidate.

CNN reported Tuesday that Trump and President Obama had been briefed about allegations that Russian operatives had "compromising personal and financial information" about Trump.

BuzzFeed published the entire report and its salacious and unverified details, saying it was letting the public judge for themselves the content in the report that intelligence agencies had reportedly summarized for President Obama and the president-elect.

The story came on the eve of Trump's first press conference, scheduled for Wednesday, Jan. 11, at 11 a.m.

As the story was breaking, Trump took to Twitter with the all caps: "FAKE NEWS - A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!, followed by a string of other tweets, including:

"'BuzzFeed Runs Unverifiable Trump-Russia Claims' #FakeNews"

"Russia just said the unverified report paid for by political opponents is 'A COMPLETE AND TOTAL FABRICATION, UTTER NONSENSE.' Very unfair!"

"Russia has never tried to use leverage over me. I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA - NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!"

"I win an election easily, a great 'movement' is verified, and crooked opponents try to belittle our victory with FAKE NEWS. A sorry state!"

He then ended the tirade with the reference to Germany.

CNN delivered 6.17 million total viewers during 10 and 11:45 p.m. from the Democratic National Convention, including 2.16 million in the 25-54 age bracket.

That topped cable rivals MSNBC, at 4.92 million total and 1.41 million in the 25-54 demo, and Fox News at 2.39 million and 662,000, respectively.

NBC was tops among broadcasters at 4.15 million total viewers and 1.5 million adults 25-54.

The Philadelphia wingding featured speeches from President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and VP hopeful Tim Kaine, all singing the praises of Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton.

Read more at broadcastingcable.com.

Senate Commerce Committee chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) took to the Senate floor Thursday (July 7) to criticize the FCC and its chairman over alleged disclosure of nonpublic information. 

In a lengthy speech, Thune said independent agencies need to be accountable to the people but that in recent years the FCC has been behaving more like a de facto arm of the executive branch "wholly subservient to the President" than an independent agency reporting to Congress. President Obama has publicly pressed for Title II reclassification and "unlocking" the set-top box, both FCC hot topics.

Thune also talked about the recent partisanship at the agency, which he attributed to "an institution that has seized regulatory power while simultaneously shutting down bipartisan dialog and compromise."

As examples he cited the FCC's Lifeline reform, "backward looking" set-top box proposal, "power grab of stunning proportions" of new Title II-based net-neutrality rules, broadband privacy "power grab" and other actions, which he said had all been characterized by a lack of respect for the limits of the FCC's authority as delegated by Congress.

He called that a downward trajectory for the agency and blamed FCC chairman Tom Wheeler.

Thune said Wheeler had "embraced" partisanship over compromise. He also said the chairman exercises his powers with neither humility nor a light touch. Thune particularly took aim at what he suggested was selectively leaking nonpublic information, counter to FCC rules.

Thune cited the FCC's March 31 open meeting to illustrate selective leaks in service of his general "power grab" theme. That was the FCC's vote on Lifeline reform, which included the collapse of a compromise between the two Republican commissioners and Democrat Mignon Clyburn.

The compromise was reported by various outlets, including Multichannel News, prior to the delayed meeting start. It ultimately fell through over Clyburn's decision that she could not support a cap on the Lifeline subsidy.

Thune said Wheeler was trying to exempt himself from the rule preventing disclosure of nonpublic information by selectively leaking information about the compromise. Thune said the result of the leak was that "the story spurred outside political pressure against the emerging bipartisan compromise, which subsequently fell apart" to be replaced by a party-line vote on the chairman's proposal, which did not have the cap Republicans favored.

The chairman’s office had no comment, but Wheeler has explained his position in a letter to Thune.

The senator said that, when pressed, the chairman would not say whether he had authorized the leak. Thune said Wheeler did answer that he was "empowered to do anything that streamlines the FCC's work." Thune called that a "specious" attempt to exempt the chairman from a clear FCC rule.

The senator said Wheeler was using the rule against disclosure of nonpublic information as both a shield and a sword, saying he was free to share such information, but suggesting Republican Ajit Pai had actually done so in violation of the rule.

The FCC Inspector General is currently investigating the leak, and Thune said he is looking forward to the findings.

Innovation may move at the speed of light, but the agency charged with overseeing much of that innovation, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), simply does not.

That hasn’t changed since 1998 when I was chief of its Cable Services Bureau charged with drafting the first cable set-top box order. At the time, the FCC voted to “unlock the box” by requiring companies to separate the security feature that protects encrypted, copyrighted content from the box itself. The hope was that separating security and the box would spur lots of different companies to build boxes consumers could buy from Circuit City, Radio Shack or Crazy Eddie.

Here’s the problem: The FCC policy never really took with consumers.  Only a few thousand cable customers ever bought a box with the FCC's fix. Finally, in 2015, Congress got rid of the integration ban. Over the years there were various failed attempts at a better solution to making the box commercially available, but the box ceased to be a high priority on the FCC’s agenda.

Now, in an inexplicable bout of déjà vu, a lame-duck FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler, is making another run at creating a market for set-top boxes through a catchy sales pitch, “Expanding Consumers’ Video, Navigation Choices—Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices.”  The cable industry and Hollywood say this FCC proceeding is a giveaway to Silicon Valley. It requires programmers to allow behemoths like Google access to their proprietary content that can be streamlined, repackaged, and wrapped around new packages of advertising.

Breaking with the tradition of not commenting on pending FCC matters, President Obama made a bold televised announcement on April 15 declaring the unlocking of the box one of his core competitive priorities. The White House boldly claims the proposal now pending before the FCC “will promote innovation and lead to positive results for consumers” such as lower costs. Unfortunately, the FCC and this administration have missed an important development: innovation has already evolved beyond anything the FCC could mandate.

I, for one, would prefer big pharma as a core competitive priority because my Advair prescription costs substantially more than a monthly set-top box fee -- and that’s not something I can cut.

Internet-edge providers such as Netflix, Hulu, Roku, Apple TV and others have become disrupters in the video marketplace. Cable subscribers are cutting or shaving the cord in droves. The set-top box is no longer the gatekeeper of video in the home. The future of TV will be tablets, smartphones, smart TVs and other devices that today are unimaginable. In fact, Comcast just announced a deal with Roku where it will offer InfinityX video streaming through Roku devices without a box.

So what does the FCC’s rulemaking actually do for consumers? In the near term; nothing-In the long term, probably nothing good. When the dust settles, the government has no ability to forcibly lower the cost of the box.

A close look at the president’s pledge reveals neither the White House nor the FCC offers any real proof that anyone other than the Googles of the world will benefit from new rules. The FCC’s rules are at risk from a lengthy court challenge, so consumers shouldn’t rush to Best Buy, HH Gregg or Target stores anytime soon to purchase streaming devices enabled by new FCC rules.

Furthermore, the box has a hidden price. The president’s intrusion into this regulatory matter threatens public confidence in the FCC, which Congress established as an independent expert regulatory agency. Clearly, just as every citizen has the right to participate in public proceedings, so, too, does the president. But he is no ordinary citizen. Highly charged public comments by him may unduly influence the FCC’s rulemaking process, thereby subjecting the agency to charges of bias. This is especially true, given this administration's close ties to the main beneficiary of the order -- Google

By highlighting this issue in an election year as a component of his core competition agenda, Obama has politicized it. Scoring political points through a pending regulatory matter weakens the FCC’s stature as an independent expert agency.  It also places FCC commissioners, who are appointed by the president, in a precarious position.

The three Democrats on the commission who hold the majority must decide whether to obey the White House or exercise their independent judgment and expertise that their oath of office requires. If their opinion is not in accord with the president’s, do they disobey him and risk jeopardizing their careers or do they obey and violate their oath? This is a quintessential Hobson’s choice that a commissioner should not have to make. The damage to the agency’s reputation and resulting loss of consumer trust is too high a price to pay for a set-top box.

Deborah Lathen, former senior executive at the FCC, is an independent telecommunications consultant, a member of the District of Columbia Board of Ethics and Government Accountability and a former non-executive director of BT (British Telecom).

Cable networks are preparing tributes to R&B music icon Prince, who died suddenly Thursday afternoon (April 21).

The multiple Grammy-winning performer died  in Minneapolis at age 57, according to CNN and other news outlets, shocking the music and entertainment world.

RELATED:Prince Tribute Specials Continue To Pour In | MTV Acknowledges Prince's Passing During Upfront

Fans and celebrities immediately took to social media to post tributes for Prince, and President Barack Obama joined in the mourning, issuing a statement soon after the news broke.

"Today, the world lost a creative icon," the president said. "Michelle and I join millions of fans from around the world in mourning the sudden death of Prince. Few artists have influenced the sound and trajectory of popular music more distinctly, or touched quite so many people with their talent. As one of the most gifted and prolific musicians of our time, Prince did it all. Funk. R&B. Rock and roll. He was a virtuoso instrumentalist, a brilliant bandleader, and an electrifying performer.

"'A strong spirit transcends rules,' Prince once said -- and nobody's spirit was stronger, bolder, or more creative," President Obama continued. "Our thoughts and prayers are with his family, his band and all who loved him.”

Several cable networks also released statements on the his passing. BET released a statement saying the news “weighs heavily on our hearts,” adding that he was a “musical prodigy, a beautiful spirit and fashion provocateur who influenced American culture.” BET Chair and CEO Debra Lee took to Twitter, writing, "Saddened by the death of @Prince, a dear friend of mine & entire @BET family. Rest in Power, Purple King. #RIPPrince”

BET founder Robert L. Johnson also paid homage to Prince: "I will miss his idiosyncratic and quirky ways which fascinated me during the times we met when I was running BET, and of course his indelible imprint on the world of music. Purple Rain is falling all over the world today!"

MTV, which plans to refer to Prince’s death during its upfront presentation Thursday afternoon in New York and was airing the performer's music videos all afternoon, said in a statement it is “heartbroken and in utter disbelief at the news that the world has lost Prince Rogers Nelson so suddenly and so before his time."

"Prince was a once-in-a-lifetime artist who transcended every medium and genre he touched and created music with a passion and individuality that inspired multiple generations," the network said. "Our hearts and prayers go out to his family, friends and millions of fans."

John Eggerton also contributed to this story.

Judgments on President Obama's nomination of D.C. Appeals Court Chief Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court were handed down quickly from the Hill and elsewhere, including one by Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley, who doubled down on his position that no hearing on a Supreme Court nominee would be held in an election year.

“Today the president has exercised his constitutional authority," Grassley said. "A majority of the Senate has decided to fulfill its constitutional role of advice and consent by withholding support for the nomination during a presidential election year, with millions of votes having been cast in highly charged [primary] contests."

Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said it was the president's right to nominate a Justice, and the Senate's to act as a "check." That, in his view, means not holding court nominee hearings this year. McConnell said the choice of Judge Garland was not because the president thought he would be confirmed, but to politicize the process.

"With two decades of federal court experience, Garland is fully prepared for all of the responsibilities he will face as our next Supreme Court justice -- no matter how Senate Republicans try to spin it," said Democratic National Committee chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.).

Online activist group Demand Progress said it was disappointed the president didn't nominate a more progressive judge and was withholding judgment on Garland, but called on Republicans to hold a hearing.

"It's disappointing that President Obama missed the opportunity to solidify his legacy by appointing a true progressive to the Supreme Court," the group said. "As Demand Progress and other organizations determine whether we can support this nomination, one thing is clear: Senate Republicans must do their jobs under the constitution and move without delay to give Merrick Garland a fair hearing."

Brad Woodhouse, president of Americans United for Change, which has been pushing to fill the seat of the late Antonin Scalia this year, said: "President Obama has met his constitutional responsibility and has put forward a nominee for the Supreme Court with impeccable credentials and qualifications. The President has done his job; it's time for Senate Republicans to stop playing politics and do theirs and give Judge Garland fair consideration for a seat on the Supreme Court."

Wade Henderson, president of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said: “In choosing Chief Judge Garland to fill this vacancy, President Obama has demonstrated his commitment to the constitution and our democracy to make sure that the Supreme Court is fully equipped to serve our nation with its full complement of nine justices. Judge Garland is the most well-prepared Supreme Court nominee in generations."

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), ranking member of the Senate Communications Subcommittee, said: “Chief Judge Garland is widely respected by legal experts from across the political spectrum and has a real shot at earning bipartisan support in the Senate. It’s time to end the political gamesmanship and do the job that the American people elected us to do."

REACTION:Grassley: Judiciary Won't Hold Hearing on Merrick This Year

Merrick Garland, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which has primary jurisdiction over FCC-related legal challenges, has been nominated by President Obama to succeed Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.

Media attorneys could not immediately cite any big FCC-related cases Garland had written. The president noted that as deputy attorney general, Garland supervised "every aspect of the federal response" to the Oklahoma City bombing,

Garland is from Obama's hometown of Chicago and has taught at the president's alma mater, Harvard Law (the judge is a graduate of Harvard as well). He clerked for Supreme Court Justice William Brennan from 1979 to 1981.

Garland joined the D.C. Court in April 1997 and was named chief judge in February 2013. The president said that in his 19 years on the circuit, Garland had brought "diligence, passion and an unwavering regard for the rule of law."

The President also said Garland, putting himself through Harvard, had taken several jobs and had to sell his comic book collection.

"Been there," said the President, with obvious sadness and to general laughter.

Obama also called Garland a passionate defender of the First Amendment.

The president said he did not take his responsibility lightly and said he had sought input from both Republicans and Democrats. He called Garland one of the nation's sharpest legal minds admired on both sides of the aisle.

Notwithstanding, Republicans have said they will not hold hearings on the president's nominee, or any nominee, before the election.

President Obama said he recognized it has been a noisy and volatile political season, but added: "The Supreme Court is supposed to be above politics. It has to be."

Garland will travel to the Hill Thursday to talk with legislators. The president called again for a hearing, and an up-or-down vote.

"I have fulflilled my Constitutional duty," he said. "It is time for the Senate to do theirs."

An emotional Garland called his nomination the highest honor of his life, and said there was no higher public service than a seat on the high court. He also said that as a Supreme Court Justice, he would follow the law, not make it.

He said he knew his mother was watching on television and "crying her eyes out."

President Barack Obama made his final four predictions on ESPN Wednesday morning (March 16), saying the Kansas Jayhawks would beat the North Carolina Tar Heels in the NCAA Men's Basketball Championship game.

He said the other two teams making the Final Four would be Michigan State and Texas A&M.

“The President was a Cinderella as a candidate eight years ago, but he has gone with the favorites in each year of his presidency,” said Katz of the presidential picks.

President Obama has made a pick every year since taking office, with a record of 1-6, only getting it right in 2009 when he chose North Carolina. Watch the video of today's picks here.

Count CNN and NBC News among those media outlets that took President Obama up on his call to compare terrorist violence and U.S. gun violence.

Frustrated at yet another mass shooting, the president took to the airwaves Thursday night (Oct. 1) to comment on the Umpqua Community College attack in Roseburg, Ore.

He suggested the media has a role in getting the message across that mas gun violence must stop and to counter the press releases that will call for more guns and fewer gun safety laws. In an effort to avoid criticism for "politicizing the issue" -- though he argued guns threaten the body politic -- President Obama asked media outlets to publish gun violence stats.

"I would ask news organizations ... to tally up the number of Americans who have been killed by terrorist attacks in the last decade and the number of Americans who have been killed by gun violence, and post those side-by-side on your news reports," Obama said. "This won't be information coming from me, it will be coming from you."

On its website Friday (Oct. 2), CNN did just that.

"Using numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we found that from 2004 to 2013, 316,545 people died by firearms on U.S. soil," CNN reported. "This data covered all manners of death, including homicide, accident and suicide."

CNN noted that 2013 is the most recent year CDC data for deaths by firearms is available.

By contrast, CNN said, "[a]ccording to the U.S. State Department, the number of U.S. citizens killed overseas as a result of incidents of terrorism from 2004 to 2013 was 277. In addition, we compiled all terrorism incidents inside the U.S. and found that between 2004 and 2013, there were 36 people killed in domestic acts of terrorism. This brings the total to 313."

NBC News took on the challenge on its website as well, looking at data from 2001 to 2013 and taking a slightly different tack than CNN. While it also used CDC stats, the news organization used only homicides and did not include "legal interventionism" (police) or suicides.

NBC found that while 153,144 people were killed in firearm homicides over that period (the number would have been 394,912 if all deaths were included), only 3,046 people in the U.S. died in terrorist or possible terrorist attacks with the 9/11 attacks obviously representing the majority of those deaths.

Comedy Central’s Emmy-nominated sketch comedy series Key & Peele will end its run in September after five seasons.

The series, starring Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele, will end after its fifth season which launched earlier this month and concludes in September, according to reports. On Saturday Peele tweeted: “Don’t Miss the last 8 episodes!”

In an interview with TheWrap, Key explained that the move was initiated by the comedians and not Comedy Central, adding that it was “time to explore other things, together and apart.”

The series launched in 2012 and spawned several memorable characters, including Key’s portrayal of Luther, an “angry translator” for Peele’s impression of President Barack Obama.

Key & Peele was recently nominated for seven Emmy Awards, including “Outstanding Variety Sketch Series.”

The national My Brother’s Keeper initiative will be the subject of a Father's Day documentary that will be simulcast by Discovery Channel and OWN.

The Rise: The Promise Of My Brother’s Keeper documentary, debuting June 21, will explore the lives and families of boys and young men of color from four programs derived from the White House-inspired My Brother’s Keeper initiative, said network officials.

The documentary, directed by Dawn Porter (Gideon’s Army) will feature an interview with President Barack Obama regarding his boyhood experiences and his commitment to the initiative, which looks to ensure all youth complete their education and find employment once they’ve left school.

 “As President Obama has made abundantly clear, now more than ever we need to change the narrative in this country around boys and young men of color,” said John Hoffman, Executive Vice President of Documentaries and Specials for Discovery Channel in a statement. “Dawn Porter’s artful storytelling serves as a powerful testament to the vital importance that strong communities, involved families, and dedicated educators all play in ensuring that all of our children have an equal chance at success.”

President Obama Friday signed an executive order that encourages the sharing of cyber threat information within industry and with the government, which both of those agree is key to protecting information online.

The White House also continues to push for cyber sharing legislation as well.

"Rapid information sharing is an essential element of effective cybersecurity because it ensures that U.S. companies work together to respond to threats, rather than operating alone," the White House said. It has been pushing for legislation to do that, but as with other issues in the President's last term, he is trying to goose the process via executive actions.

But the President is also looking for legislation to boost info sharing and collaboration. "While we applaud Congress for successfully passing several pieces of important cybersecurity legislation last year, we still need Congress to pass key cybersecurity legislation," the White House said.

That bill would allow for sharing and establish a national data breach reporting regime. "The Administration’s updated proposal helps businesses and consumers by simplifying and standardizing the existing patchwork of 46 state laws (plus the District of Columbia and several territories) that contain these requirements into one federal statute," The White House said.

House Homeland Security chairman Michael McCaul (R-Tex.) has already set aside Feb. 25 for a hearing on the President's cybersecurity information sharing proposal.

“The recent cyber attack on Anthem was yet another stark reminder of the persistent threats we face," said McCaul. "Now, more than ever, Congress must take aggressive action to remove legal barriers to improve private entities’ ability to share information to combat these attacks."

It was a busy day for cybersecurity Friday (Feb. 13) as the White House convened stakeholders -- tech companies, privacy advocates, consumers advocates, law enforcement, educators and others -- to talk about collaborating and partnering on cybersecurity and financial protections, the venue for announcing the new order.

“We applaud the White House’s commitment to information sharing initiatives that will help our country ward off damaging cyberattacks,” said Tim Pawlenty, president of the Financial Services Roundtable. “We hope this will push Congress to swiftly enact cyber threat information sharing legislation that provides strong liability protections so companies can share critical threats with each other and the government as they work to protect customers from the next major cyberattack.”

The summit follows various moves by the White House to address cyberthreats, including an Executive Order on developing a framework for critical Infrastructure cybersecurity protections. Among the companies that committed to that framework Friday were Intel, Apple, Bank of America, AIG, QVC, Walgreens and Kaiser Permanente.

Intel also announced the launch of True Key, which it describes as "a new consumer application by Intel Security that eliminates the hassle of managing passwords and enables consumers to use unique and more complex passwords – without having to remember them – so they can better protect their information and identity."

“TechNet commends President Obama and the administration for shining a spotlight on the growing cybersecurity threat to the country’s critical infrastructure and computer networks," Linda Moore, president and CEO, said in a statement. “By traveling to Silicon Valley to host today’s summit and by collaborating with a range of innovation economy leaders, the president received important feedback on the nature of the cyber threat and the tools available to mitigate the risk. TechNet members, including Symantec, Apple, Visa and Fortinet, were also cited by the President as being at the forefront of building and integrating some of the security protocols and standards outlined today.”

Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler, a fan of history, last week fired the shot heard ’round the communications world, proposing to regulate the Internet like a utility — he disputes the characterization — and drawing howls of protest from providers and high praise from public-interest groups.

The chairman, urged to act by President Obama, last Thursday (Feb. 5) circulated a draft order of tough new network-neutrality rules based on reclassifying Internet- service providers under regulations known in local parlance as Title II, as in the common-carrier rules detailed in Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Both Wheeler and Obama have said they want to codify rules that would block ISPs’ ability and incentive to throttle Internet traffic or otherwise threaten access to the broadband networks owned and operated by cable operators and others.

Never mind that formal complaints about discrimination and blocking have been notable for their absence. Internet-service providers have said they aren’t blocking or throttling traffic, and have even agreed to rules based on Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to prevent such actions. Section 706 gives the FCC broad authority to “promote competition in the local telecommunications market” and “remove barriers to infrastructure investment.”

Cable-sector investors, who have the most to lose from the decision, were decidedly unfazed, and seemed to take a cue from Alfred E. Neuman of Mad magazine: “What, me worry?”

Cable stocks, which were down about 10% in the month of January as the Title II threat gained steam, actually rose after Wheeler announced his regulatory intentions in a blog posted last Wednesday (Feb. 4) on the website of Wired, widely read among the Silicon Valley community. As a whole, the sector was up about 3%, with Charter Communications gaining 2.6%, Comcast 2.7% and Time Warner Cable about 2% each. Cablevision Systems was up 1.3%.

Wall Street’s reaction, however muted, was expected, mainly because Wheeler has telegraphed his Title II intentions for weeks — and because his announcement brings some certainty.

“The question was how assertive/clear the forbearance against rate regulation and fees was going to be,” Telsey Advisory Group media analyst Tom Eagan said, adding that in Wheeler’s Wired op-ed piece, the chairman was specific about excluding wireline telephony-style rate regulation, unbundling and universal-service fee requirements from the new regime.

“Those exclusions are an incremental positive,” Eagan added.

Pivotal Research Group principal and senior media & communications analyst Jeff Wlodarczak added that the gains could be the result of other investors who’d been waiting on the sidelines, deciding to jump in after Title II became more certain.

“There was a lot of capital sitting on the sidelines that wanted to be invested in cable given there was significant worry that the head of the FCC would pull a negative surprise out of his hat around price regulation or forcing open plant,” Wlodarczak said. “[Wheeler] came out pretty forcefully against that. In the end there was an expectation that it could be a lot worse than it actually was, so people piled in.”

Moreover, many believe that a true reckoning over price regulation may never come; Wlodarczak and others expect a flood of litigation from opponents to Title II once the regulations kick in, with telcos Verizon Communications and AT&T first in line, based on their stated intentions.

Still, some believe cable operators and investors may be whistling past the graveyard. Wheeler has told the communications world he wants, in effect, a written guarantee that there will never be competitive discrimination, by passing the toughest such rules the FCC — or even the president — has ever proposed.

MoffettNathanson principal and senior analyst Craig Moffett emphasized last week that Title II is by its nature a regulatory pricing regime.

In an interview, Moffett said the stocks’ reaction after Wheeler dropped the Title II bombshell “makes no sense. Short of simply arguing that the certainty of bad news is better than uncertainty, there is no plausible reason for why the stocks should be up.”

Although Wheeler has said he will not pull the price regulation trigger while he is in control, Title II could be a ticking time bomb just waiting to explode.

Randolph May, president of Rockville, Md.-based think tank the Free State Foundation, said he thinks the Title II order will eventually be all about the money. “I predict that either immediately, or in the not-too-distant future, the agency will regulate broadband usage tiers, ban or require modifications to so-called zero-rating plans, and control prices for interconnecting Internet facilities,” May said.

Compounding the uncertainty is that most people misunderstand what Title II really means, according to Moffett.

“There is no ambiguity about what Title II really is — Title II is about pricing regulation, full-stop,” Moffett said. “You can forbear the subsections about price regulation, but when you import an act that is fundamentally about price regulation, it would be naïve to think that price regulation isn’t going to seep in around the edges.”

FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS

That is especially true as political administrations and affiliations change. Having such a powerful tool at the ready could be extremely handy if the FCC decides to “unforbear” from unbundling or price regulations.

Understandably, cable operators are against the proposal and have begun circling the wagons to determine just how they will address the new regulatory regime. Charter Communications CEO Tom Rutledge, a veteran of past industry regulatory battles, recently said that Title II could be business as usual, basically enforcing what cable operators are already doing. But he, too, said he fears what the future could hold under what he called an “excessive approach.”

“While it doesn’t change the status quo in any way, somebody has a bazooka aimed at you, and that’s an uncomfortable situation,” Rutledge said.

One official called it a double-barreled source of authority that employs every tool in the toolbox, or more apropos, every gun in the arsenal. Title II also turned out to be personal for Wheeler.

This Time, It’s Personal

“I personally learned the importance of open networks the hard way,” he wrote in Wired. “In the mid-1980s I was president of a startup, NABU: The Home Computer Network. My company was using new technology to deliver high-speed data to home computers over cable television lines. Across town, Steve Case was starting what became AOL.

“NABU was delivering service at the then-blazing speed of 1.5 megabits per second — hundreds of times faster than Case’s company. ‘We used to worry about you a lot,’ Case told me years later.

“But NABU went broke while AOL became very successful,” Wheeler continued. “Why that is highlights the fundamental problem with allowing networks to act as gatekeepers.

“While delivering better service, NABU had to depend on cable-television operators granting access to their systems. Steve Case was not only a brilliant entrepreneur, but he also had access to an unlimited number of customers nationwide who only had to attach a modem to their phone line to receive his service. The phone network was open whereas the cable networks were closed. End of story.”

The chairman is proposing to reclassify Internet access as a Title II service to buttress three bright-line, enforceable rules against blocking, throttling (degrading) of content and a ban on paid prioritization, the so-called Internet fast lanes that had net-neutrality opponents staging protests at Wheeler’s home and staging mock fights between people in cat, and “fat cat,” suits outside FCC headquarters.

The rules will, for the first time, be applied to mobile Internet service, as well as fixed broadband.

And in a nod to the ongoing complaints of Netflix about peering, the FCC for the first time will provide for a complaint process for consumers and businesses that believe interconnection practices, including pricing, harm competition, and give the Enforcement Bureau the power to investigate and take action.

That is a way to address the issue without turning it nuclear. Although ISPs could not file complaints against edge providers, who are not covered under the new rules, if a company such as Netflix complained, a Comcast or Time Warner Cable could offer up evidence for arguments that Netflix engineered congestion to further its political objectives.

The draft includes a catch-all general conduct rule that allows the FCC to “stop new and novel threats to the Internet.” Wheeler did not elaborate, but a senior FCC official suggested that would be a way to get at specialized services — which are still allowed — if they are functional equivalents of Internet access or attempts to evade the rules.

That will also be a way to prevent “anticompetitive” discrimination but allow it for things like prioritizing remote health monitoring over video game playing. That could also include preventing ISPs from exempting their own content from data caps, one official said.

The draft also “enhances” the FCC’s network management transparency requirement, in ways that include more specifics on how to measure quality of service and making clear that reasonable network management applies to technical, not business, needs.

FOREBEARING IS NOT SCARING

The FCC will forbear, i.e., not apply, most of the Title II regulations — officials last week called it Title II tailored for the 21st century — and Wheeler insisted last week that the rules do not impose utility-style regulation on ISPs. For example, he said, there will be no rate regulation, new tariffs or unbundling of last-mile connections — that doesn’t apply to future FCCs or their chairmen, of course.

Nor does it trigger an obligation to pay into the Universal Service Fund, though the FCC has a separate proceeding on whether to make ISPs pay into the fund, which could eventually result in a USF hit for cable operators.

The rules apply to ISPs, not to other parts of the net, notably edge providers and companies that haul bulk traffic to ISPs before the final mile to consumers. The rules, Wheeler said, don’t create “burdensome administrative filing requirements or accounting standards.”

Wheeler chose Wired, the Silicon Valley bible, to announce what many were expecting; “I am proposing that the FCC use its Title II authority to implement and enforce open Internet protections,” he said in an online op-ed that appeared about the same time House Communications Subcommittee chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) was criticizing him for a planned takeover of the Internet.

But legislators were doing more than taking sides on the issue, though they were doing that, too.

Republicans in both the House and Senate were still working on a draft bill that would block the imposition of Title II while giving the FCC express authority — in a new section of the Communications Act some have labeled Title X — to prevent blocking and degrading and paid priority, essentially everything Wheeler and the president said they wanted.

No Democrats have signed onto the bill, but a few last week said they were still willing to work on a bipartisan bill.

ISPs had already been bracing for the blow. National Cable & Telecommunciations Association president Michael Powell — who, as FCC chairman during President George W. Bush’s first term, backed defining Internet access as an information service, rather than a Title IIcovered telecom service — called the new rules a “heavy burden of Title II public-utility regulation on the Internet that goes far beyond the worthy goal of establishing important net-neutrality protections,” protections Powell said he supports. He was concerned that, despite the chairman’s protestations to the contrary, the new rules would “confer sweeping discretion to regulate rates and set the economic terms and conditions of business relationships,” and called Title II an “Internet Iron Curtain.”

Meredith Attwell Baker, a former FCC Republican and now president of CTIA–The Wireless Association, said the new rules threatened the future of mobile broadband. She has vowed to sue if the Title II order is approved and applied to mobile providers.

Title II activists were seeing it as payoff for years of work, including driving millions of comments to the FCC. “This is a banner day, as years of grassroots organizing is paying historic public interest dividends,” Michael Copps, a former FCC Democrat and onetime acting chairman, said.

“Chairman Wheeler’s announcement is the culmination of a decade of dedicated grassroots organizing and advocacy,” Free Press policy director Matt Wood said, echoing Copps’s sentiment.

Congressional Democrats who have been pushing Title II, including Sens. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.), were also doing victory laps. “Today is an historic day — historic for consumers, innovators, entrepreneurs, for anyone who counts on the Internet to connect to the world,” Markey said last week. “These rules are a Declaration of Independence for the Internet.”

The End is Near

Wheeler has set a Feb. 26 vote on the order, which was only a draft that circulated to the other members the customary three weeks before a vote.

An FCC official said the commissioners’ offices all received the item at the same time. The commissioners will have a chance to suggest edits, and cable operators and ISPs will be hoping for some changes. For example, the American Cable Association, which represents smaller, independent MSOs, didn’t get the carve-out from the rules for its members that it asked for, so it will be hoping to move the needle on that issue.

After the Feb. 26 vote, the order must be published in the Federal Register, which will likely take at least a few weeks and possibly months. Once published, there will likely be petitions to reconsider, then lawsuits.

MTV has hired former White House staffer Ronnie Cho as its vice president of public affairs, the network said Wednesday.

Cho, who formerly served as the Associate Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, will oversee the strategic direction of all pro-social campaigns across MTV, MTV2 and mtvU’s television, digital and social properties.

Cho will also work with recently hired Rich Ferraro, senior director of public affairs for Logo TV, to build new LGBTQ pro-social initiatives. Cho will report to MTV and Logo TV president Stephen Friedman.

“Ronnie has dedicated himself to being an advocate for young people,” said Stephen Friedman, President of MTV and Logo TV. “He’s the perfect person to expand MTV’s role as the megaphone for the Millennial generation – and to provide our audience new tools to take action on the issues they care about most.”

Last week, the momentum behind the huge topic that has broiled through several Republican and Democratic administrations and decades, and has rarely gone anywhere forward, i.e., the Immigration issue, moved substantially forward, again.

Yet, again, it did so, solely at the hand of President Barack Obama. In that act, the more important political accomplishment by the chief executive was to capture another four years at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for a Democratic administration.

That result also promised to extend the 3-2 Democratic commissioners’ current majority at the Federal Communications Commission from eight to 12 years, at minimum (along with the power base at just about every other administrative office at the federal level). Thus, judging the odds, if one were making important political and business decisions about the leanings of the FCC as we round the next decade, the folks whose mascot is the donkey might well get the nod. 

Walk The Walk

Some would say there is no basis for such a brash prediction, especially almost two years away. Yet, there actually is a huge basis, in common sense.

That is because President Obama no longer simply talked about continuing his support of foreign would-be citizens, he actually did it; and for a second time. (Recall, The President took similar steps in mid-year 2012.)

Thus, when it comes time for those tens of millions of illegal immigrants, their friends, their families, and everyone else who knows them, to express opinions about which political party actually moved to do something, at least a couple of times, to help their status, it will very likely stay the Democrats. That will, in turn, produce millions of decisive votes (especially if the Democrats can effectively exercise the “Immigrant” vote).  

Versus Talk The Talk

In my estimate, there is a good chance that younger brother Jeb Bush will become the best runner for the Republicans. He is moderate, and seems to hold a place in his heart for these people who so want to become Americans. Jeb is also great for this audience of voters mentioned in the paragraphs above, because he apparently speaks fluent Spanish, he knows the culture well, and he was governor in Florida, a state with lots of Latinos and Latinas there that will back him, as well.

Yet, very importantly, what Jeb Bush will lack between now and November 2016, will be the ability to say that he didn’t just talk about helping Mexicans, Cubans, and other immigrants in the U.S. today (and, again, their friends, families and those that know them), but actually helped them. Because compared to what President Barack Obama did for them in the third full week of November 2014, Jeb Bush could only promise; Jeb Bush could only talk.

Plus, Jeb will still get no more effective, first-level backing than that from a party that has considerably short-changed immigrants, for decades now. Moreover, Latinos and Latinas and other minorities, especially with efforts in their families and spheres to become citizens, know that difference between a politician who talks about great things he will do for them, and one that actually risks much to actually do it.

Best of The Bad

Please do not mistake my message here. I am not saying that the President’s act last Wednesday was all good, nor am I saying I agree with it entirely. I am the son of an immigrant who worked hard at a time in a country that did not want him, and waited a very long time for a green card, followed by a citizenship status that he was tremendously proud of. And like my father would, I do not like the idea of others coming into this country and getting his same benefits, without having to abide by the same laws and earn that privilege as he did.

But, the common sense and the practicality simply no longer permits the federal government to deport, and continue to seek to deport, so many millions of illegal immigrants, thus we settle on the lesser of evils, and make the best of a bad situation.

That is what Mr. Obama did last week, and in the process, it won the White House for Hillary Clinton or whoever the Democratic candidate will be. Plus, in that tortured process, it means that a more progressive influence will hold sway over telecom and media matters, all the way into 2020 and the next decade!

In the end, the Republicans will likely continue to exercise gnashing, gnawing, and ranting, even to the point of trying to sue and impeach and challenge President Obama with cancelling legislation, but they have -- via their inaction and other acts too often showing less than good faith toward these peoples -- let the Voting Genie Out of The 2016 Bottle, and He/She Will Vote For They That Helped Them Best.

It’s just common sense (and a bit of basic math), all liberalism and conservatism aside.

Jimmy Schaeffler is a telecom/media author and chairman and CSO of the Carmel-by-the-Sea-based streaming/broadband, broadcast, and pay TV/video consultancy, The Carmel Group (www.carmelgroup.com).

In the week since President Obama's unexpected "Title II" video debuted, plenty of Washington verbiage has been spilled on what happens next - and why.

The White House recommendation that the FCC should place public utility regulation upon Internet Service Providers rankled countless insiders and, of course, totally confused "civilians" - the unwashed masses who merely rely on the Internet for all kinds of business, consumer, financial and entertainment services.

By fortunate coincidence, several D.C. think tanks had already scheduled broadband seminars for the week, some timed as follow-up analyses to the recent Congressional elections, others keyed specifically to the evolving debate about Title II regulation.  Obama's screed merely inserted an added dimension into the predictable, politically-fueled pronouncement that emerge from these think-tank symposia.

What did not emerge from these seminars or from Obama's appeal was any comprehensive approach to the big issue confronting policy-makers: an omnibus overhaul of the nation's communications law, the elusive "Telecommunications Act Reform" process on Capitol Hill.

Indeed, last week's Kabuki maneuvering and posturing about the FCC and Title II was a good way to distract attention from a really big topic - policy overhaul - and focus instead on the pretty-big topic du jour - Internet regulation. To be fair, some of the Washington events touched on copyright reform (which might include retransmission consent), media mergers, Internet tax issues (some of which require immediate action) and spectrum allocation.

Collectively, these interconnected issues cry out for integrated analysis and action. Realistically, the new Congress is unlikely to tackle such a massive undertaking - especially when brush fires such as Title II can both distract attention and simultaneously attract so much lobbying support  (i.e. contributions).

Inevitably, at last week's seminars, there was substantial debate about the merits of "Section 706" (the part of the 1996 Telecom Act that lets the FCC oversee "Advanced Telecommunications Capabilities") versus Title II regulation.   For example, at Friday's Free State Foundation session entitled "Thinking the Unthinkable" (i.e. the 'utility model" regulation) Rep. Bob Latta (R-Ohio), who sits on the House Communications Subcommittee, and the two Republican members of the FCC blasted the "unthinkable" idea of Title II regulation.

FCC commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly(pictured left and right) both pointed to two significant ripple effects of imposing Title II regulation on ISPs: putting onerous Universal Service Fund fees on ISP usage and sending a bad message about America's Internet stance to foreign authorities. The USF issue would have more immediate impact on cable operators and other ISPs since customers would see substantial fees directly in each month's bill. 

Pai and others are even more concerned about any policy that would embolden foreign governments, especially repressive regimes, to impose Internet regulation of all sorts on their domestic system operators. Pai warned that if the FCC adopts a restrictive Title II policy, it would further diminish America's credibility and tell other nations to "do as we say not as we do."

In addition, there are immediate problems, such as how a unilateral U.S. regulation policy will affect international treaties for dealing with transborder communications, an issue with vast consequences in the Internet Protocol era.

In separate remarks at the Free State Foundation event, O'Rielly focused on forebearance, the process by which the FCC could carve out exemptions from its most severe policies.   But  as O'Rielly said, it "should not  be conceived as easy"  and there has been no indication about which parts of Title II might receive such forebearance.

Last week's seminars served as reminders about the complexity of the individual issues and the inevitable frustrations triggered by such piecemeal action rather than a comprehensive process, such as a Communications Act overhaul.

Going down either road will take a lot of time, and as the recent policy-wonk omphaloskepsis reminds us: there is unending contemplation ahead.  Bringing it all into a bleak perspective were the concluding comments at the FSF seminar.

It's a "regulatory rat hole," said Gerald Faulhaber in an abject summary of the FCC's current options.  Faulhaber, a former FCC chief economist and now professor emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, characterized the choices:

"The only difference between Title II and Section 706 is how fast we go down the rat hole."

WASHINGTON — Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler was heading to work to meet with stakeholder groups about new Internet-neutrality rules last Monday morning (Nov. 10), but before he could put his car in neutral, he was faced with pro- Title II protestors blocking his vehicle and chanting his name.

That was only the beginning.

Later that day, Wheeler received marching orders — or as close to them as independent agencies get — that regulatory authority under Title II of the Telecommunications Act was needed to prevent paid prioritization of online traffic and protect an open Internet. President Obama took to the Internet in a video outlining a Title II plan, saying his idea should be Wheeler’s as well.

The plan — to regulate broadband providers like electric utilities — was not exactly a surprise. The White House had advised the chairman the week before that the Monday bombshell was coming, according to an FCC source.

Wheeler had been expected to push for new network-neutrality rules by a Dec. 11 meeting, but a source at the FCC said some issues with the Title II side of the hybrid approach — how to apply them to mobile broadband service and whether rules would actually ban paid prioritization — were already pushing that expected timetable.

By early last week, it looked like the commission was not going to take any action on network neutrality before early 2015 at the soonest — FCC counsel for external affairs Gigi Sohn, a top Wheeler aide, has signaled as much — and that a Republican- controlled Congress was likely to be hammering Wheeler during that process, and that Title II was gaining even more traction, much to the chagrin of Internetservice providers.

The longer time frame will give cable and telco lobbyists more time to make the case against Title II, but now the president’s thumb is squarely on the other side of the scale.

The FCC is an independent agency, a fact acknowledged by the president and noted by Wheeler in response to Obama’s remarks. But Wheeler was technology adviser to Obama’s transition team and shares the president’s opposition to paid priority.

TIPPING THE SCALES For now, Wheeler has put the Title II card on the table and could very well play it, perhaps in combination with authority under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act in a new hybrid approach along the lines of one proposed by Mozilla, producer of the Firefox Web browser.

Wheeler said he would take the president’s plan under advisement and make it part of the record. But he also said he agreed with its basic themes and would need time to figure out the best way to accomplish its goals via regulation. And FCC Democrats now know that a vote for anything without Title II attached to it is essentially a vote against the president.

“I can’t imagine that either commissioner [Jessica] Rosenworcel or [Mignon] Clyburn will be willing to vote for anything less than Title II,” one open Internet activist who asked not to be identified said. “If they have to choose between the president and Tom Wheeler, they will choose the president.”

There were reports that Wheeler had told stakeholders last week he was not exactly in line with Obama, but Sohn indicated those reports took the chairman’s words out of context and that was not a safe bet.

ISPs were already facing an uphill battle to prevent the FCC from applying some hybrid form of Title II to Internet-access service in the new network-neutrality rules.

Now, the hybrid proposal in which the very invocation of the name Title II drew vociferous responses from ISPs is looking more like the compromise position.

“With the president to the left of the chairman on the issue and Silicon Valley screaming for no paid priority, Title II hybrid may be the new middle ground, though not middle enough for either side,” a veteran Washington, D.C., attorney said.

Cable and telco ISPs immediately pushed back on Title II, saying the Internet could be protected without it. They also started pushing Congress to get into the act to stop any momentum. The Republican Congress arriving in January is no advocate of networkneutrality rules of any stripe, and certainly not of Title II.

Telco and cable-industry players are pushing back via white papers, seminars and studies arguing that any approach that incorporates Title II would lead to litigation — and even a potential new Internet tax, according to the National Cable & Telecommunications Association. The NCTA, the main cable-industry trade group, blogged about having to contribute to the Universal Service Fund, a cost which would be passed on to customers, potentially adding as much as another $7.25 a month to cable bills.

The NCTA has been sufficiently worried about Title II to launch a social media campaign. Initially a stealth effort, the “Onward, Internet!” campaign suggests the Internet had been doing just fine without heavyhanded regulation.

Full-Court Press

How did Title II grow from a veiled threat to an unsheathed sword? It was the pressure from millions of net-neutrality activists who flooded the FCC, according to Timothy Karr, senior director of strategy at Free Press, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group that favors such regulations. “It’s taken nearly 10 years of hard-working advocacy and organizing to get Washington to understand that Title II reclassification is the best and most legally sound way forward for net neutrality,” he said.

One attorney in the fight agrees. The public is more aware of the net neutrality fight, the attorney argued, and better organized by Silicon Valley, than four years ago. For instance, he noted the “a dingo ate my nondiscriminatory access” segment on HBO’s popular satirical series Last Week Tonight With John Oliver, slamming Wheeler and ISPs; it aired June 1 and subsequently generated 6.7 million YouTube views.

The recent maneuvers may now allow the new Republican-controlled Congress to hold hearings and propose legislation — a telecom law rewrite is teed up for next year in the House Energy & Commerce Committee, and will likely get a more welcoming reception in the Senate.

But even a hybrid proposal may get hung up on the words “paid priority”; the phrase has become the line in the sand of activists and others in Silicon Valley, not to mention the president of the United States.

“I cannot recall that a president has ever before made a public statement about a pending FCC rulemaking,” veteran public interest lawyer Andrew Schwartzman said. “This means the president is committed to network neutrality, so that he will feel impelled to veto any legislation or appropriations rider relating to net neutrality.”

Hybrid Concerns The hot-button issues for all stakeholders are paid priority and interconnection. ISPs were clearly concerned, and with reason, about a hybrid model that would use the FCC’s regulatory authority under both Section 706 and Title II.

In recent days, many ISPs have begun arguing more strongly that they have no plans to do paid priority and that the FCC doesn’t need Title II to prevent anticompetitive prioritization. Comcast executive vice president David Cohen blogged that Comcast agreed with the president that paid priority should be disallowed, but not by using Title II to do it. And opponents are hammering on the horrors that will ensue if Title II rears its ugly head, including a loss of innovation and investment in a now-flourishing industry.

Even without the president’s thumb on the scale, Wheeler was taking pains to make clear Title II was in play. Was Wheeler raising the specter of Title II — after proposing rules without it — to appease the pro netneutrality base that took aim at his initial proposal?

Perhaps. But Wheeler is likely looking toward his legacy, not his next job.

Crafting a Compromise

The FCC network-neutrality rules crafted four years ago were themselves something of a political hybrid, the result of negotiations between the agency and major stakeholders. The compromise rules were essentially a shotgun wedding, with the invocation of Title II reclassification as the shotgun.

An FCC source indicated the agency has no plans for a similar compromise confab, though nothing is guaranteed. The chairman has pointed to the series of forums on various proposals the FCC held with stakeholders to illustrate the current effort’s even-handedness. And Wheeler had already scheduled meetings last week with stakeholders to talk about the rules.

The 2010 rules were justified under the FCC’s authority to promote broadband deployment under Section 706. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said the rules’ ban on unreasonable discrimination was too much like a Title II commoncarrier regulation.

Then-FCC chairman Genachowski ultimately kept the Title II card in his vest after stakeholders were able to support rules that did not employ common-carrier regulations.

Now, Obama appears to be trying to force the FCC’s hand and up the ante with pureplay Title II rules. The hybrid proposal is still on the table, an FCC source speaking on background said, but many questions remain to be worked out. One of the reasons Wheeler is looking at the hybrid model, the source said, is that it isn’t clear whether Title II can cover mobile — which Wheeler may want to bring under the regulatory tent when it comes to discrimination — and that it does not does ban paid priority outright.

With wireless broadband the focus of FCC and Obama administration affections — as well as auctions looking to free up hundreds of Megahertz worth of spectrum and bring in billions of dollars, such as last week’s AWS-3 auction — the agency is being pressured to apply more Internet-neutrality rules to that sector. The last time wireless broadband became a regulatory issue, it dodged the antidiscrimination rule due to its different network-management challenges. Cellular carriers may not be so lucky this time around.

Cable and telco operators remain highly critical of Title II, straight up or with a Section 706 chaser. AT&T chairman and CEO Randall Stephenson spoke to Wheeler earlier this month, telling him that Section 706 is enough to prohibit paid prioritization and that Title II could do a number on Wheeler’s top priority: extending high-speed broadband service. Stephenson echoed that warning to analysts in New York last week.

But Wheeler, an avid student of history, has likened this moment in broadband regulatory history to seminal moments in the regulatory histories of other must-have technologies, like electricity and the railroads.

Wheeler has signaled his belief that broadband is at a seminal moment in terms of its relationship with government. He has made it clear that as so-called “terminating monopolies,” ISPs have the power and incentive to limit competition and access, and that government needs to step in to prevent that from happening. He declined to be interviewed for this story.

Craig Moffett, MoffettNathanson research partner and senior analyst, said he doesn’t think the Title II hybrid is the end of the world for ISPs or investors. He has predicted there would have to be some “grand bargain” that could be included as a template in the pending approval of the merger of top MSOs Comcast and Time Warner Cable.

And rather than seeing it as a “nuclear option,” Moffett suggested the market would welcome an approach that excludes Title II from the consumer side of the market and only applies it to wholesale interconnections.

“It neatly sidesteps the worst case scenarios, and while interconnection regulation is certainly not good news for operators, neither is it a calamity (we don’t know of anyone who had significant interconnection revenue in their models),” Moffett wrote in a blog post.

Working in Wireless Moffett said he expects that wireless will be included in the “grand bargain” regulations if they fly, and a no-paid-prioritization condition on Comcast-TWC, essentially a hedge against something happening to the rules again.

One key may be how Congress reacts, Moffett said. Lawmakers haven’t offered much response to Wheeler’s Title II trial baloon. That’s not surprising, since most legislators were focused on getting re-elected.

Lending credence to Moffett’s argument that ISPs may be able to live with the hybrid option is how much Title II advocates don’t like it. “This Frankenstein proposal is no treat for Internet users, and they shouldn’t be tricked,” said Craig Aaron, president of.

What’s So Bad About Title II?

Why do Internet-service providers and their allies in the network-neutrality debate argue that imposing Title II classification on broadband is a disastrous, tectonic shift that could threaten the Internet rather than save it? Here are some reasons:

(1) Forbearance, forshmearance. Title II fans argue that the FCC can fairly easily forbear (decide not to apply) most of the telephone-era regulations that could mean tariffs and rate regulation and control of market entry and exit. Critics, including Center for Boundless Innovation in Technology chairman Fred Campbell, a former FCC bureau chief, say not so fast: “Given that, one, the FCC’s standard for forbearance is competition; two, FCC precedent says competition isn’t possible with respect to terminating monopolies, and three, the FCC’s justification for net neutrality is that ISPs are terminating monopolies with respect to content providers, forbearance from price regulation after reclassification would appear to be more difficult than ‘easy peasy.’”

(2) Wall Street does not like uncertainty, and plenty of legal uncertainty would emerge if Title II is adopted. AT&T said it will sue, and it is likely not alone. By contrast, only Verizon sued last time around. Suddenlink argued forbearance will bring “all-consuming, overwhelming and costly litigation and uncertainty.”

(3) Do as we say. Imposing Title II common-carrier regulations would compromise the credibility of U.S. arguments against other countries’ regulation of the Internet, a point made by former FCC member Robert McDowell.

(4) Title II could make it harder to do a pro-consumer priority like VoIP, the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation pointed out, while many note that Title II might not ban the paid priority its fans are worried about, a point the FCC is wrestling with.

(5) The FCC may not be able to apply Title II to mobile broadband. Wheeler has signaled it might be time to expand net-neutrality rules to mobile wireless, given its growth. The FCC had decided not to apply antidiscrimination rules to wireless, but said it would monitor the marketplace and could change its mind.

(6) It would discourage investment, the very investment the FCC is trying to encourage to achieve its Section 706 goal of deploying broadband.

(7) Under Title II, the FCC would likely have to start regulating beyond ISPs to currently unregulated Internet entities, such as content-delivery networks (like Netflix) or even search engines (like Google).

(8) It’s consumer-unfriendly. In fear of running afoul of the rules, providers are discouraged from differentiating their services in ways that might benefit consumers.

“ Source:Multichannel News research, with assists from Center for Boundless Innovation in Technology director Fred Campbell, Precursor LLC president Scott Cleland and Free State Foundation president Randolph May.

History has enlisted the commander-in-chief to introduce the network’s six-hour special event series The World Wars, which premieres on Memorial Day, May 26, at 9 p.m. ET/PT. 

The series, which details the history of World War I and World War II as told from the perspective of men who held power like Roosevelt, Hitler, Mussolini and Churchill, will run for three consecutive nights. President Obama will introduce the first of the series’ three nights. 

The series is narrated by Jeremy Renner, and it features interviews with active political figures such as Sen. John McCain, General Colin Powell, British Prime Minister John Major and Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti. 

The World Wars is produced by Stephen David Entertainment, with Russ McCarroll, Paul Cabana and Elaine Frontain Bryant serving as Executive Producers for History.