Genachowski’s response to Dingell-gram fails to persuade

He said the commission should
instead look to Congress to grant it more power.

“In this way, the Congress
and the commission may ensure the establishment of a steadfast legal foundation
for an open Internet,” Dingell wrote.



In a May letter to the FCC, Dingell had said he is doubtful of the FCC’s regulatory proposal for
broadband services despite that he supports net-neutrality rules, which the FCC hopes to
enact under the authority it would gain through its administrative
maneuver. 

After Genachowski failed to
respond to the letter, Dingell prodded him with an additional missive this
month, in which he said it was “frustrating” that he had not received a reply.

Net-neutrality rules would
prevent Internet service providers from treating Internet traffic in an
anticompetitive or discriminatory way. The prospect of the FCC gaining a firmer
legal ground to pass these regulations is among the reasons phone and cable
companies oppose Genachowski’s proposed regulatory maneuver.

Dingell, who prides himself on the thoroughness of his
“Dingell-grams” sent on issues of concern, had listed five points aimed at
questioning the legal basis Genachowski has used to support his plan to change
the regulatory classification of broadband services.