”We don’t have the statutory authority to do what we're...

to legislate.” McDowell said he disagrees strongly with Chairman Julius Genachowski’s statement that the Comcast v. FCC decision “created uncertainty in an area that had been widely regarded as settled.” What has created uncertainty is “discussion of trying to regulate the Internet under common carrier rules,” McDowell said. The issue has been settled for years as it was handled by the Clinton and Bush administrations, he said: “In the course of that, broadband has proliferated.” The proposal especially threatens innovation at the core of the network, he said. It creates “an asymmetry in the market,” and “it puts the thumb of government on the core of the Internet and says we can have unfettered innovation at the edge, but on the core the government’s going to have a ‘mother-may-I’ approach.” Despite the Comcast case, the commission still has the authority to reform the Universal Service Fund “based on the explicit authority we have under Section 254” of the Communications Act. Even if the FCC didn’t have such authority, there is a work-around, he said. “If you're a traditional phone company that receives subsidies … for traditional voice services, we can tie that subsidy to your performance in the broadband market.” McDowell said the National Broadband Plan’s major components of reforming universal service and bringing more spectrum to the market aren’t impacted by the case: “There’s no way you can argue the Comcast decision affects our ability to do that.” As new technologies “are ahead of the law” and have “erased the lines between these silos the government created a long time ago … we probably do need to look at it,” McDowell said in response to a possible update of the Communications Act.