Reports that the FCC may regulate broadband as a Title I...

an event organized by Free Press. “The Obama promise of keeping the Internet open and free is at stake,” Marvin Ammori, Free Press senior adviser, said on a teleconference. After the Comcast decision, the FCC is left with two options, said Free Press Policy Counsel Aparna Sridhar: “It can continue trying to shoehorn its policies into a Title I framework” or classify data transmission under Title II. The latter provides a regulatory framework with a clear distinction between connectivity and applications traveling over the lines, she said. The speakers dismissed opponents’ claims that reclassification would result in sweeping litigation, including claims of First Amendment violations. Sridhar said: “We're talking about regulating conduct that’s not expressive.” Phone companies “weren’t able to argue that they can block calls because they had a free speech right,” Ammori said. A Title I regime would affect cybersecurity, privacy and adoption measures, they agreed. It would be a mistake to assume that the Title I route wouldn’t cause litigation, but the question is how much, said Barbara van Schewick, a Stanford Law School professor. “If we stay under Title I, we'll have to go to court for every single thing we want to do with it,” including a Universal Service Fund overhaul and net management rules. It would also affect getting broadband out to rural communities and establishing the U.S. as a leader in innovation and entrepreneurship, said Josh Silver, Free Press executive director. Net neutrality regulation won’t scare away investment, Ammori said. “For companies to say their stocks will go down is like car companies saying, ‘People won’t invest in us if we have to supply air bags and seat belts.'”