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.