Regulatory classification

Mozilla and others that had challenged the Federal Communications Commission's deregulation of internet access in the 2017 Restoring Internet Freedom Order (RIFO) have decided not to take that challenge to the Supreme Court. This moves the issue to the states that implemented their own net neutrality legislation in response to the FCC's RIFO. The deadline was July 6, and Mozilla signaled there would be no challenge in the high court. "After careful consideration, Mozilla—as well as its partners in this litigation—are not seeking Supreme Court review of the DC Circuit decision," Mozilla.

It's 2020, and a coronavirus pandemic has underscored how crucial broadband service is to the lives of Americans for work, entertainment, and school. Internet service is a necessity, and yet it isn't regulated as a utility. But back in 2014 (when this story was originally published) and 2015, there was a hot debate over whether the Federal Communications Commission should treat broadband service like a utility—or, more precisely, as a Title II common-carrier service—in order to impose net neutrality rules.

We're all obviously aware of the unprecedented National Emergency President Donald Trump declared on March 13, 2020 and the shelter-at-home orders many have lived under in the last few months. Telework, telehealth, and distance education have all boomed during this time, testing residential broadband networks like never before. Back in the early weeks of the crisis, assessments based on data from broadband providers themselves and third-party internet traffic monitors led one policymaker to declare that surges in Internet traffic are well within the capacity of U.S.

The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) says the Federal Communications Commission should restore net neutrality rules and that ISPs are glossing over the issues the deregulatory ruling raises.  It was filing reply comments in the FCC's Restoring Internet Freedom order. AARP signaled it was not surprised the ISPs were "glossing over" specific issues in their comments, though it was surprised Comcast suggested that there had not been any problems with the FCC's Title I classification in the past, saying that was unsupported by the evidentiary record, a nice way of saying that was

USTelecom -- The Broadband Association told the Federal Communications Commission it supports a free and open Internet, just one defined as "unencumbered by unnecessary regulations." It was filing reply comments in a court remand of portions of the FCC's 2018 Restoring Internet Freedom order, most of which the court upheld. USTelecom said the RIF order benefitted public safety and did not undermine either the pole attachment regulatory framework or the Lifeline broadband subsidy.  As have other ISP commenters, USTelecom pointed to the increased investment prompted by the deregulation as ben

The Lifeline program and pole attachment rights are inextricably linked to the Federal Communications Commission’s Title II authority. The FCC's decision to reclassify broadband internet access service (BIAS) as an “information service” removes BIAS-only providers from the statutory scheme that governs pole attachments. If a portion of those who would provide broadband-only services are unable to attach, that will limit the FCC’s ability to promote broadband build-out.

The Mozilla court remanded to the Federal Communications Commission for further consideration the impact of the Restoring Internet Freedom Order on broadband providers’ ability to obtain pole attachments.

In Mozilla v FCC, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the Federal Communications Commission’s 2018 “Restoring Internet Freedom” Order, in which it reclassified broadband internet access service (“BIAS”) as an “information service” and attempted to preempt state laws addressing net neutrality.

Public interest commenters, including public safety officials, overwhelmingly agreed with Free Press’s assessment that the Federal Communications Commission’s misguided repeal of Net Neutrality and its authority over broadband internet access service (“BIAS”) harms the Lifeline program, pole attachment regulation, and public safety. These commenters also overwhelmingly agreed that the best remedy for such harms would be for the Commission to once again correctly classify broadband as a Title II service protected by strong open internet rules.

The Federal Communications Commission's Net Neutrality remand proceeding, INCOMPAS highlights several important points: