Communications Act of 1934

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

Already the Federal Communications Commission’s busiest docket, the effort to restore network neutrality rules saw a rush of new comments on December 14, the deadline for initial submissions by interested parties looking to affect the outcome of the proceeding. Replies to those comments are due January 17, 2024, after which the FCC can schedule a vote on a final rulemaking. A majority of FCC Commissioners support restoring the rules by reclassifying internet access as a Title II telecommunications service subject to FCC regulation as a common carrier.

For 20 years, proponents of so-called Title II net neutrality have argued the only way to ‘save the internet’ is to impose 1930s-era Ma Bell telephone regulations on today’s broadband networks.

In comments filed at the Federal Communications Commission, Public Knowledge commended the FCC for acting to restore net neutrality as well as creating the proper authority allowing for commonsense consumer protections for broadband users.

In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress directed the Federal Communications Commission to reduce regulation. While the FCC initially made several bipartisan steps in that direction, over the last three presidential administrations the agency has switched between aggressive and relaxed regulation of broadband services on an explicitly partisan basis, including the imposition of legacy common carrier regulation on broadband services in the name of Net Neutrality.

The House Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications and Technology held a Federal Communications Commission oversight hearing that included testimony from each of the five (yes, there are five now) FCC commissioners. A partisan tone was set by the get-go as the title for the hearing was "Oversight of President Biden's Broadband Takeover." The key questions for the Republican Members of the panel going into the hearing were:

On October 6, 2023, Rep Tim Walberg (R-MI) wrote to Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel to express concerns that she "misled the public and [was] not truthful" in Congressional testimony and has proposed broadband rate regulation. In her November 14 reply to Rep Walberg, Chairwoman Rosenworcel said, "I have no interest in pursuing regulation of broadband rates." She included a paragraph from the net neutrality/Title II proposal which reads:

One of the longest-running debates about internet access has entered a new phase, and the way it unfolds could directly affect everything you do online. You might remember the net neutrality debate from a decade ago.

Whether network slicing complies with the net neutrality rules currently in force in Europe and previously applicable in the U.S. presents a key issue in the deployment of 5G. In many ways, both regimes frame the issues in a similar manner, with the exceptions for reasonable traffic management and specialised services likely to play the most important roles.

The battle for network neutrality (aka the open internet) is back. It’s something that should have been instituted years ago. In fact, it actually was on the books—until then-President Donald Trump’s Federal Communications Commission Chairman, Ajit Pai, ditched the rules, largely at the behest of the big internet service providers like Verizon, AT&T and Comcast. Net neutrality rules were not only on the books, but were also court-approved. That should have been the end of the matter.