Columbia University law professor Tim Wu, who coined the term network neutrality, says he welcomed the President's call for Title II regulations and said it was a "terrific" statement," but had also introduced a new element of chaos to an already chaotic debate over net neutrality.

The President on Nov. 10, in an update on a We the People petition calling for Title II regulation of Internet access, echoed that call and said he wanted the FCC to do likewise.

Wu was being interviewed for C-SPAN's Communicators series, which will air Nov. 15 at 6:30 p.m. ET  and Monday on CSPANII on the eights (a.m and p.m.).

The President was simply delivering on his 2007 campaign promise that he was "second to nobody in [his] belief in network neutrality," said Wu.

He also said the President hit the "reset" button after it looked like the FCC was pondering a variant of a hybrid Title II/Sec. 706 approach to justifying new open Internet regs (Wu has suggested such an approach. "Everyone is scrambling to figure out where it goes from here.”

Wu was asked whether the chairman can do other than what the President asked.

Wu pointed out, as has the President and FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, that the FCC is an independent agency. The chairman of the FCC is not obliged to obey the President. He can't fire Tom Wheeler for not doing what he says, so it is possible for Tom Wheeler to say: "I'm glad for your input, but I have another view of this.' On the other hand, it is difficult to disobey the President."

Wu said that, even by network neutrality standards, "it is a new area of chaos" and he will find no way to please all of his constituencies.

He said the most likely outcome is that things will be delayed, and get tangled up in the Comcast/Time Warner Cable merger review. "When you get down to it, net neutrality is trying to protect consumers and Internet companies against cable. And so is merger law. So they have in some ways the same goals."

Wu predicted a final rule on net neutrality would not be out until the spring, after which "act II" would be litigation.

Wu said that the effect of passing network neutrality rules under either Title II or Sec. 706, at least superficially, "is not any different." But he said, in the long run, Title II gives the agency more power to do things it later decides are more important, like mandating universal service or at least theoretically rate regulation.

He says carriers resist Title II in part because of lurking possibility of rate regulation, which Wu conceded could be a possibility down the line given the size of cable bills. He said you could imagine some future President saying it was time to regulate these prices. "And if Title II is alive and well that would be an easy route." He said he was not commenting on the merits. The President said he did not think the FCC should engage in rate regulation.

Wu does not buy the argument that Title II will threaten investment. He said carriers have been making such threats for all of their existence. "In some ways, the President is calling their bluff" out of concern about the rising power of consolidated cable companies.

"The election results ought to give pause to Chairman Wheeler," said Randolph May, president of the Free State Foundation, in a statement following the Republican's pick-up of at least a dozen seats in the House and the majority in the Senate. "The country obviously is in no mood to approve of a federal government agency that seems too eager to regulate in the absence of no demonstrable consumer harm or market failure."

That includes network neutrality rules the foundation has long argued were unnecessary and even potentially detrimental to innovation and investment.

"Wheeler ought to pivot rather quickly away from his position that Title II regulation of Internet providers is on the table and make clear it's off the table," he said.

"Then, if he still thinks the agency should adopt some new net neutrality regulation -- which I don't -- he ought to concentrate on fashioning a proposal under Section 706 that is sufficiently flexible that ISPs are able to experiment with various new service options that may be responsive to evolving consumer demands."

But Wheeler has the backing of President Obama for new net neutrality rules, and as the head of an independent agency, is not likely to be dissuaded from trying to restore rules he says are key to preserving an Open Internet.

He likened his position this week to a venture capitalist or CEO, recognizing he has to consider input from others but saying the buck stops with him. " I am grateful that I have four other commissioners with whom to work," he told a group of venture capitalists, "but by statute I am the CEO of an agency charged with the responsibility of overseeing industries that make up approximately one-sixth of the U.S. economy."

Wheeler's management style has been likened by some Washington observers more to that of a cabinet secretary than an FCC chair.

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), who represents Silicon Valley (Google, Facebook), said Wednesday that the FCC should focus in on Sec. 202 of Title II as a part of a way to take a light-tough approach to reclassifying ISPS's under those common carrier regs, so light as to essentially forbear all but six sentences (Sec. 202).

Eshoo, the ranking Democrat on the House Energy & Commerce Committee, said in an interview for C-SPAN's Communicators series that one of the charges against Title II reclassification of Internet access is that it is a heavy handed and old fashioned approach. She said she was sensitive to that criticism and you "really have to be cautious about heavy-handed regulation.

She also said she recognized the investments made in broadband innovation, so she was "very sensitive" to the "heavy hand or regulation. But she said that for the sake of certainty for consumers and those innovators, there is a Title II "light touch" solution.

That is the argument that the FCC can forbear many of the 46 elements in Title II and focus on sec. 202. That section says it "shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage."

Critics of the Title II move have pointed to that section as argument that it is no guarantee against prioritization since it bars only "unreasonable discrimination."

She said if she were an FCC commissioner, she would focus on Sec. 202.

Her point appeared to be that the FCC could use Title II in a "very light touch" way that did not involve all the other common carrier regs on the books.

"I hope that the rhetoric doesn't prevail that you simply cannot go near Title II because it is old fashioned, heavy handed regulation. you don't need all of Title II," she said, in fact "you need very little of it."

Critics of Title II reclassification have argued that the FCC would have to levy a tariff on edge providers under a Title II regime, one they could not forbear.

Asked if she thought it was possible to forbear essentially all but Sec. 202, she said she believed so. "There are some people who say that one sentence out of Title II is not acceptable. I think that is an uninformed view."

She suggested that would be the wise and prudent approach and one that would give companies certainty and get the issue beyond lawsuits. That means no legal cloud hanging over the decision, which is why she thinks a Sec. 202-focused approach holds a lot of promise and is a "creative pathway."

Eshoo says she thinks the FCC's new Open Internet order should be extended to wireless broadband. The proposed new rules by FCC Chairman Tom wheeler tentatively concluded they should not, but that is still on the table, particularly given Wheeler's focus on the importance of mobile broadband.