Multichannel News

Likely seeing the re-regulatory handwriting on the wall, cable internet service providers have told the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) just how it should reclassify broadband as a Title II service and what it should and shouldn’t do when it reimposes new net neutrality rules, as it is expected to do after a suitable timespan following the public comment period on its reclassification proposal. NCTA – The Internet & Television Association, joined by over a half-dozen state associations, said if the FCC goes ahead with the plan, it should do the following:

The Biden administration is fighting a two-front war in its campaign to re-regulate internet service providers (ISPs), fronts that opponents fear could include price regulation as ammunition. The Federal Communications Commission's Democratic majority voted on October 19, 2023 to propose reclassifying internet access as a Title II telecommunications service subject to some common-carrier regulations and to restore net neutrality rules.

Fans of Title II-based network neutrality rules are once again flooding the Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality comment docket with identical calls for restoration of the rules, as the Democrat-controlled agency has proposed. The docket already has almost 20,000 comments and, as such, is the commission’s most active proceeding, far outstripping the second-place docket for rules on international communications and spectrum issues, which has less than 3,000.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case in early 2024 that could impact how much regulatory discretion the FCC has over the communications industry. The court agreed to hear the case of Relentless Inc., et al. v. Dept. of Commerce, et al. The case is about a federal rule requiring fishing companies to pay for government monitoring of their herring catches.

Ready or not, the Federal Communications Commission’s program to “rip and replace” suspect network technology is coming. And one trade association representing smaller carriers says there isn’t enough funding to do the job, and that means there could be ripping without replacing that puts some areas of the U.S.

Video streamers and other edge providers are fighting a multi-front war in Washington lately, as Congress applies pressure on the Federal Communications Commission to apply good-faith negotiation rules to over-the-top content providers, as it does traditional video providers, and as hundreds of rural broadband providers and associations call on the agency to make edge providers contribute to broadband buildout subsidies. The FCC wrestled with the issue of how and whether to regulate th

Anna Gomez, President Joe Biden's nominee for the open Democratic seat on the Federal Communications Commission, told the Senate Commerce Committee that she supports reclassifying internet access as a Title II telecommunications service. Since Gomez’s bureaucratic background left little room for Republicans to attack her in the same way as Gigi Sohn, she’s got a seemingly better chance of getting confirmed. Currently, the FCC classifies internet access as an information service under Title I of the Communications Act, and not subject to common-carrier/open access regulations.

Some policymakers are calling for money to subsidize middle-mile networks. Because it is so difficult to precisely define “middle mile,” and therefore identify and measure its outcomes beyond simply being built, it’s hard for politicians and recipients of the money to resist their spending spree of federal funds regardless of whether it’s needed. More middle-mile funding can generate new construction and a ribbon-cutting ceremony, but nobody will ever know if it generated more broadband. 

[Sarah Oh Lam is a senior fellow at the Technology Policy Institute]