Regulatory classification

The House will vote on H.R. 1644 (Save the Internet Act of 2019), introduced by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA), which would reinstate the net neutrality protections of the Federal Communications Commission’s 2015 Open Internet Order. H.R. 1096 (Promoting Internet Freedom and Innovation Act of 2019), a competing measure introduced by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), purports to restore the Open Internet Order’s rules against blocking, throttling and paid prioritization, as well as the transparency rule.

While Republicans support free and open Internet and have offered three bills to start a conversation on the best approach to codifying protections for consumers, H.R. 1644—The Save the Internet Act—is more about scoring political points than protecting consumers from ISP blocking and throttling. H.R. 1644 would restore the heavy-handed, government control of the Internet that depressed investment in broadband networks for two years.

On March 26, 2019, Federal Trade Commission Chairman Joe Simons spoke before the Free State Foundation about how the FTC’s two missions -- competition and consumer protection -- apply to the internet ecosystem.

Democrats believe that net neutrality can only be achieved by regulating the Internet as if it were a utility under Title II of the Communications Act, which was originally used to govern monopoly telephone companies in the 1930s. The “Save the Net Act” imposes the heavy hand of Washington’s regulatory bureaucracy over the single most important driver of economic growth, job creation, and a better quality of life for all Americans.

After over nine hours of debate over mostly failed amendments, and delays, legislation that would re-regulate internet access by reinstating the Federal Communications Commission's 2015 Open Internet Order's Title II-based net neutrality rules is on its way to a vote in the full House, where it is likely to pass. An amended version of the Save the Internet Act (HR 1644) was approved by the House Commerce Committee on a party-line vote.

The Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission are very different in our mandates and our legal authority. The FTC is, principally, a law enforcement agency. It is not a sector regulator like the FCC. There are key differences between conduct prohibited by the FCC’s Open Internet Order, and conduct that the FTC can reach now with our antitrust and consumer protection jurisdiction. Antitrust law is sufficiently flexible and dynamic to cover a wide range of activities.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai said that some advocates of network neutrality saw a political advantage in fomenting fear about the policy’s end. “Net neutrality” is a “very seductive marketing slogan,” Chairman Pai said. But “ultimately what it means is government regulation of the Internet.” “As to the question of why people are upset, I’ll be candid.

During both recent House Communications Subcommittee hearings regarding network neutrality, Republican lawmakers have railed against Title II, rules that have been in place since 1934. On March 26, during the bill’s markup hearing, House Commerce Ranking Member Greg Walden (R-OR) called the inclusion of Title II “not necessary” for any net neutrality bill, and argued that it “could provide the federal government with near unlimited and unchecked authority for bureaucrats in Washington that oversee the internet.” However, Democratic lawmakers have argued that such predictions are unfounded g

Reaction was swift to the House Communications Subcommittee's referral of the Save the Internet Act to the full House Commerce Committee, the first step in its likely passage by the House. NCTA-The Internet & Television Association said, “With today’s action, the subcommittee has stubbornly insisted on a partisan path that leads to a dead end.