> In particular, the FCC has built up a large amount of precedent restricting its own ability to forebear from applying regulations:
The article you posted neither claims nor supports that (the article's analysis is also a mess for other reasons, but addressing those would only be germane if you were citing it for the claims it makes.) The only thing that article actually says that relates to FCC "precedent" is repeating a bunch of things about how the FCC has handled forbearance petitions -- and nothing in that about the scope of forbearance powers, just procedural things about the petition process. Since forbearance concurrent with Title II classification isn't handling a forbearance petition, that procedural discussion is all completely irrelevant.
The only thing it says about restrictions on the FCC ability to forbear is referencing the statutory limitation on forbearance on Section 251(c) regarding certain obligations of incumbent local exchange carriers.
(The closest the article comes to your argument that the FCC has "built up a large amount of precedent restricting its own ability to forebear" is the simple and unsupported description that the FCC using forebearance in association with net neutrality would be using "unprecedented and undocumented authority to forbear willy-nilly", which -- even if it was accurate -- fails to support your point, because the absence of precedent isn't the presence of contrary precedent; its inaccurate because the authority to forbear from any regulation or provision of Title II, with a few specific restrictions, is quite well documented at 47 USC Sec. 160(a).)
> Reclassification will be a huge opportunity for consumer protection types to push for rate setting, and the FCC will have to defend why forebearance is appropriate.
Not for rate-setting, because Title II doesn't require rate setting even before considering any application of forbearance. Title II only requires rate publication.
It allows rate setting (specifically, it permits, either upon petition or on the Commission's own initiative, the Commission to engage in hearings on any rate notice change), but does not require it (even before considering any application of forbearance), so no forbearance is necessary for the Committee to decline to engage in rate setting, even for a service determined to be within the scope of Title II.
The article you posted neither claims nor supports that (the article's analysis is also a mess for other reasons, but addressing those would only be germane if you were citing it for the claims it makes.) The only thing that article actually says that relates to FCC "precedent" is repeating a bunch of things about how the FCC has handled forbearance petitions -- and nothing in that about the scope of forbearance powers, just procedural things about the petition process. Since forbearance concurrent with Title II classification isn't handling a forbearance petition, that procedural discussion is all completely irrelevant.
The only thing it says about restrictions on the FCC ability to forbear is referencing the statutory limitation on forbearance on Section 251(c) regarding certain obligations of incumbent local exchange carriers.
(The closest the article comes to your argument that the FCC has "built up a large amount of precedent restricting its own ability to forebear" is the simple and unsupported description that the FCC using forebearance in association with net neutrality would be using "unprecedented and undocumented authority to forbear willy-nilly", which -- even if it was accurate -- fails to support your point, because the absence of precedent isn't the presence of contrary precedent; its inaccurate because the authority to forbear from any regulation or provision of Title II, with a few specific restrictions, is quite well documented at 47 USC Sec. 160(a).)
> Reclassification will be a huge opportunity for consumer protection types to push for rate setting, and the FCC will have to defend why forebearance is appropriate.
Not for rate-setting, because Title II doesn't require rate setting even before considering any application of forbearance. Title II only requires rate publication.
It allows rate setting (specifically, it permits, either upon petition or on the Commission's own initiative, the Commission to engage in hearings on any rate notice change), but does not require it (even before considering any application of forbearance), so no forbearance is necessary for the Committee to decline to engage in rate setting, even for a service determined to be within the scope of Title II.