Regulatory classification

On May 7, the Federal Communications Commission reclassified “broadband Internet access service” (BIAS) as a “telecommunications service” subject to the jurisdiction of the FCC under Title II of the Communications Act. The FCC determined that “the freedom to send and receive lawful content and to use and provide applications and services without fear of blocking continues to be essential to the Internet’s openness,” and expressed concern that BIAS providers may be incentivized to block edge providers’ content. Under the Open Internet rules, BIAS providers are prohibited from impairing or de

The Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill provides a total discretionary allocation of $23.608 billion, which is nearly 20 percent below the President’s Budget Request and nearly 10 percent below the effective spending level provided in Fiscal Year 2024. The defense portion of the allocation is $45 million, and the non-defense portion of the allocation is $23.563 billion.

As expected, broadband industry lobby groups have sued the Federal Communications Commission in an attempt to nullify net neutrality rules that prohibit blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. Lobby groups representing cable, telecom, and mobile Internet service providers sued the FCC in several US appeals courts.

Bob Latta (R-OH5) introduced a 

Big internet service providers (ISPs) have been using the same arguments against being regulated for the last decade. These arguments were used to justify killing Title II regulation under the Ajit Pai FCC and have been resurrected today to try to get Congress to override the FCC’s decision to reimpose broadband regulation. From my perspective, their arguments have gotten stale and out of touch with the way the market really operates. The big ISP trade associations have been telling the public for years that broadband prices have been falling in ‘real terms’.

As the Federal Communications Commission reinstates Title II regulation, the definition of broadband defines what is and isn’t directly regulated. In the Order that reinstated Title II regulation, the FCC notes that it continues “to define 'broadband Internet access service' as a mass-market retail service by wire or radio that provides the capability to transmit data to and receive data from all or substantially all Internet endpoints, including any capabilities that are incidental to and enable the operation of the communications service, but excluding dial-up Internet access service.” It

On May 7, 2024, the Federal Communications Commission released a Declaratory Ruling reclassifying “broadband Internet access service” (BIAS) as a “telecommunications service” subject to the jurisdiction of the FCC under Title II of the Communications Act. It was accompanied by an Order removing BIAS from most Title II regulations and a Report and Order applying a set of Open Internet rules to BIAS providers.

The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled recently that federal telecommunications law does not stop states from regulating broadband rates. This was in relation to a 2018 law passed by the State of New York that required internet service providers (ISPs) to offer low-income rate plans for as low as $15 per month. ISPs appealed the new law, and a US District Court issued an injunction against the law. The recent ruling overturned that injunction and puts the law back into effect.

The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) waives the FCC’s rules, on its own accord, to include in West Side Telephone Company’s (West Side’s) Enhanced Alternative Connect America Model (Enhanced A-CAM) offer locations that would otherwise have been treated as served by a competitor due to a federally enforceable commitment by ClearFiber. This limited waiver applies only to the locations within West Side’s West Virginia study area where ClearFiber is no longer subject to a

This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is entered into by the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission for the purpose of facilitating their joint and common goals, obligations, and responsibilities to protect consumers and the public interest. The Agencies recognize and acknowledge that each agency has legal, technical, and investigative expertise and experience that is valuable for rendering advice and guidance to the other relating to the acts or practices of Internet service providers. It is agreed that: