Regulatory classification

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.

For 20 years, proponents of so-called Title II net neutrality have argued the only way to ‘save the internet’ is to impose 1930s-era Ma Bell telephone regulations on today’s broadband networks.

In comments filed at the Federal Communications Commission, Public Knowledge commended the FCC for acting to restore net neutrality as well as creating the proper authority allowing for commonsense consumer protections for broadband users.

In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress directed the Federal Communications Commission to reduce regulation. While the FCC initially made several bipartisan steps in that direction, over the last three presidential administrations the agency has switched between aggressive and relaxed regulation of broadband services on an explicitly partisan basis, including the imposition of legacy common carrier regulation on broadband services in the name of Net Neutrality.

A conflict between state and federal laws may delay the first distribution of Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program funds to the states. Sixteen states bar or restrict municipally owned broadband—and nearly all of those states appear unwilling to amend their laws as they finalize plans for how they will use their share of BEAD funds.

For many years, I’ve heard people say that broadband is essential. But what exactly does that mean? Does it mean that broadband is important in a lot of people’s lives, or does it mean that broadband is something that society can’t live without? Grocery stores, gas stations, and auto repair shops could all be considered essential for society.

The House Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications and Technology held a Federal Communications Commission oversight hearing that included testimony from each of the five (yes, there are five now) FCC commissioners. A partisan tone was set by the get-go as the title for the hearing was "Oversight of President Biden's Broadband Takeover." The key questions for the Republican Members of the panel going into the hearing were: