Communications Act of 1934

The Federal Communications Commission is heading into the next round of Washington’s longest-running fight over technology policy. On Oct. 19 the agency is slated to take a preliminary vote to reassert its authority to regulate broadband providers, clearing the way to pass a version of the net neutrality rules that it eviscerated during the Trump administration.

We write to express our disappointment and opposition to your announcement that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will vote to reclassify fixed and mobile broadband as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Not only is this bad public policy, but it is also unlawful. Reclassification and the associated heavy-handed regulations that accompany this action continues to be a solution in search of a problem. We seek the following information by October 31, 2023:

Small rural internet service providers (ISPs) had until the end of September to tell the Federal Communications Commission whether they wanted to participate in the Enhanced ACAM program. The E-ACAM program extends subsidies to these small providers through 2038, and in exchange the providers will serve all locations in their territory with 100/20 Mbps broadband, making most of them ineligible for the BEAD program.

Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel announced her plan to restore the agency’s rightful authority to protect internet users. To undermine this effort, the industry has cranked up its Title II myth machine.

While this is not the first time the Federal Communications Commission has pursued Title II regulation purportedly to address net neutrality, it is the first time the FCC has reached beyond the no blocking, degrading, or prioritizing principles to which broadband providers already adhere. The FCC is veering into the complex realm of cybersecurity and national security via top-down regulation rather than collaborative partnership, a choice many experts view with skepticism.

A fact sheet on how net neutrality protects consumers and online freedom of speech. Open internet protections have long had widespread – upwards of 80 percent – support from the American people who have come to expect that they will be able to access all lawful content on the internet uninhibited by their broadband service provider’s business decisions. Across administrations from 2005 to 2018, it was the clear policy of the FCC to enforce open internet standards.

Network neutrality mandates have been made out either as necessary to ensure a level playing field in online markets or, alternatively, as overly restrictive regulation preventing innovation and investment. However, there is little empirical research on the consequences of data throttling, which becomes legal without network neutrality regulations. We combine throughput levels measured for mobile internet service providers in the United States with usage data to explore how sensitive users are to such practices.

The Federal Communications Commission currently regulates broadband internet access service (BIAS, if you will) as an "information service" under Title I of the Communications Act. As the FCC contemplates reclassifying BIAS as a telecommunications service under Title II's common-carrier framework, the question is whether the FCC has authority to do so. Federal appeals courts have upheld previous FCC decisions on whether to apply common carrier rules to broadband.

Two areas in the draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet: 

Currently, no federal agency can effectively monitor or address broadband outages that threaten jobs, education, and public safety. And while the Federal Communications Commission has acted on a bipartisan basis to secure our communications networks against companies controlled by hostile foreign governments, the lack of specific authority over broadband leaves open a national security loophole.