Communications Act of 1934

The claim that restoring light-touch Title II authority and basic Open Internet rules would harm—or did harm, from 2015 through 2018—ISPs’ broadband network investments is extraordinary. Not only because mountains of evidence from the ISPs themselves demonstrate its falsity; it is also extraordinary because the mechanism by which this supposed harm would occur is illogical and unreasonable, and has been proven ever more outlandish over time.  ISPs exist to generate economic returns for their shareholders.

The Federal Communications Commission's mission is to “make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.” The FCC’s vision is to pursue policies to bring affordable, reliable high-speed broadband to 100 percent of the country and encourage the private sector to build, maintain, and upgrade nextgeneration networks so that the benefits of advanced commu

The Federal Communications Commission is poised to raise taxes through its Universal Service Fund—a regressive, hidden tax on consumers' phone bills that funds a series of unaccountable, bloated internet subsidy programs. Rather than giving the FCC carte blanche to expand its balance sheet, Congress must reform the USF's structural problems, reevaluate its component programs, and get the FCC's spending under control. Here is my plan to do that. 

The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) seeks comment on a letter from 69 Internet Service Providers, Trade Associations, State and Local Officials, School Districts, Unions, and Civil Society Organizations [including the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society].

Once Democrats finally secured a 3-2 majority in the Federal Communications Commission, the agency lost no time in approving a long-anticipated proposal to reintroduce net neutrality by reclassifying broadband providers as common carriers. While its commitment to reclassification seems unwavering, the agency has equivocated about the preemptive effect of agency action.

Sen Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) indicated to West Virginia TV station WTRF that Capitol Hill lawmakers were looking at the Universal Service Fund as a source of money for the Affordable Connectivity Program. The USF has about $8.

In these comments to the Federal Communications Commission, the American Library Association affirms support for including Wi-Fi hotspots and services in the E-rate program, ALA urges the FCC to:

Free Press explains that the Federal Communications Commission's Title II authority allows it to safeguard Net Neutrality and hold companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon accountable to internet users across the United States. Title II is not just a legal framework that protects Net Neutrality. The ability to access quality broadband service no matter where one may live, or no matter one’s racial or ethnic identity, still matters. The ability to subscribe to broadband at an affordable price still matters.

NTCA submits that overriding public interest goals can be accomplished with narrowly drawn measures that focus upon key potential points of failure in the transmission of content and data, regardless of where they reside in the ecosystem.

The Open Technology Institute at New America (“OTI”) urged the Federal Communications Commission to restore its authority to hold ISPs accountable for anti-consumer policies and behavior by reclassifying broadband internet access services as a Title II telecommunications service and reestablishing net neutrality protections across the United States. OTI’s comments urge the FCC to update its rules to address additional issues like “zero rating” and paid interconnection agreements, and to improve ISPs’ transparency to consumers about their broadband services.