Regulatory classification

[Press release] Today, the FCC gave notice that net neutrality protections will be taken off the books on June 11. This is profoundly disappointing. The agency failed to listen to the American public and gave short shrift to their deeply held belief that internet openness should remain the law of the land. The agency turned a blind eye to serious problems in its process—from Russian intervention to fake comments to stolen identities in its files. The FCC is on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of the law, and the wrong side of the American people.

Republicans aren’t exactly rushing to support the Congressional Review Act resolution from Senate Democrats to restore the Obama-era net neutrality rules. While net neutrality advocates are trying to secure that elusive 51st vote, prominent GOP members are scoffing. Sens. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Bob Corker (R-TN) and John Boozman (R-AR) plan to vote against the CRA. “That was pretty much a no-brainer for me, it wasn’t even a difficult decision,” said Sen Corker who is retiring, arguing that the internet functioned fine before the Federal Communications Commission regulations.

The Federal Communications Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, the information collection associated with the Commission’s Restoring Internet Freedom Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order, and Order (Order)’s transparency rule.

Senate Democrats filed a long-promised petition to prevent the repeal of net neutrality rules in a move that will force a vote of the full Senate by a deadline of June 12. The Senate will have to vote on a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution of disapproval, which would nullify the Federal Communications Commission's December 2017 vote to repeal the nation's net neutrality rules.

[Op-ed] I support net neutrality. I support rules that prevent blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization of internet traffic. I believe these principles should guide us on Capitol Hill as we work to expand broadband access to even the most remote and rural areas of the country. You might be surprised to learn that most of my fellow senators believe this too. Unfortunately, manufactured controversy often gets more attention in Washington than real solutions. The internet is too important for partisan politics.

House Commerce Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr.

You might be seeing a lot of red on the internet May 9. Many sites, including Etsy, Reddit, and OKCupid will adorn their pages with “red alerts” asking readers to tell their representatives to save net neutrality.

In an attempt to win a government lawsuit over its throttling of unlimited data plans, AT&T will appeal a ruling to the Supreme Court. The Federal Trade Commission sued AT&T in October 2014 in US District Court in Northern California, alleging that AT&T promised unlimited data to wireless customers and then throttled their speeds by as much as 90 percent. In response, AT&T argues that the FTC has no jurisdiction over any aspect of AT&T's business because the FTC lacks authority to regulate common carriers.

A key reason for the contentious fight over net neutrality regulation, and the source of its partisan strife, is that the way we classify broadband Internet access for legal purposes could have weighty long-term implications: Do we want a broadband system more like a public utility under Title II of the Communications Act, or do we want to rely on private companies to drive the evolution of broadband, with relatively light oversight from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)?

A California bill that would impose the nation's strictest state net neutrality law is being replicated in the New York state legislature.