Communications Act of 1934

The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau seeks comment on petitions for reconsideration of the Restoring Internet Freedom (RIF) Remand Order filed by Common Cause, INCOMPAS, Public Knowledge, and the County of Santa Clara. The petitioners request that the FCC reconsider its decision in the RIF Remand Order, reverse or vacate that Order, and initiate a rulemaking proceeding to address the concerns raised by the DC Court of Appeals pertaining to the 2018 RIF Order. In addition to the issues raised in the petitions, the FCC invites comment on how the issues under con

Despite vowing to eschew involvement in the latest Network Neutrality drama, I cannot sit back and let stand the resumption of the distorted gospel preached by the anti-network neutrality crowd.  This group has legitimate criticisms, many of which I have tried, via hundreds of law review pages—to analyze, and even endorse, in specific instances. Network neutrality regulation will not create a suffocating Internet rate regulation regime. The Democratic majority has clearly exempted broadband internet access from Title II common rate regulation.

Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel stated, "Today, there is no expert agency ensuring that the internet is fast, open, and fair. And for everyone, everywhere to enjoy the full benefits of the internet age, internet access needs to be more than just accessible and affordable. The internet needs to be open."

NCTA: The Internet & Cable Association President and CEO Michael Powell used an opening session at his industry’s annual tech trade show to launch a full-throated, very libertarian-leaning counter-offensive to the Federal Communications Commission's plan to reinstate net neutrality rules.

The Federal Communications Commission launched a new proceeding on restoring open internet protections for consumers and businesses. The FCC also will seek comment on proposals to ensure broadband services have effective oversight. If the proposals are adopted after the public comment period and review of that record, the FCC would once again be permitted to protect internet openness and competition, protect broadband networks from national security threats, and address public safety needs like internet outages.

1. Broadband is essential: A lot has changed since the previous Federal Communications Commission repealed net neutrality. A devastating pandemic reaffirmed the essential nature of broadband access to protect the health and economic security of all Americans.
2. Abdicated oversight: The 2017 FCC approach was not “light touch.” It was a complete abdication of authority.
3. Targeted approach: Chairwoman Rosenworcel’s approach is targeted, not heavy-handed.

The Federal Communications Commission will begin implementing President Biden’s plan for increasing government control of the Internet. There will be lots of talk about “net neutrality” and virtually none about the core issue before the agency: namely, whether the FCC should claim for itself the freewheeling power to micromanage nearly every aspect of how the Internet functions—from the services that consumers can access to the prices that can be charged. The entire debate over whether Title II regulations are necessary or justified was settled years ago.

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.