TPI Scholars Argue Classifying Broadband Providers Under Title II is Unnecessary and Potentially Harmful

In these comments we explain why Title II classification is unnecessary and potentially harmful.  Specifically, we make the following points: 

•  The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) focuses heavily on increasing the Federal Communications Commission’s authority and rarely shows that Title II would lead to improvements for consumers.
• The FCC asks commenters to submit cost-benefit analyses, but does none itself. It has data from years of experience with different broadband regulatory regimes and an entire bureau devoted to economic analysis; it should ask the bureau to evaluate its proposal.
• Consistent improvements in availability and competition, including new facilities-based competition from LEO satellites and 5G fixed wireless providers, demonstrate that Title II is not necessary to promote investment.
• The NPRM offers contradictory reasons for Title II, including that Title II is necessary in order to promote future investment and that Title II is necessary because of large amounts of recent and current investment.
• The history of common carriage shows that utility-style regulation leads to increasingly complex lobbying and pricing rules.
• The proposal assumes paid prioritization is almost always bad, but provides no evidence for that assertion. Experience with educational services and telehealth during the pandemic provide examples of potential benefits of paid prioritization.