Communications Act of 1934

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.

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.