Telecommunications Act of 1996

The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau and the Office of Economics and Analytics announced revised 2024 reasonable comparability benchmarks for fixed broadband services for eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) that are subject to broadband public interest obligations.

The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB), in conjunction with the Office of Economics and Analytics (OEA), announced the conclusion of the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund auction (Auction 904) long-form application review.

It is clear that nobody at the Federal Communications Commission has used the Starlink service. We have a cabin in the woods in rural South Carolina that is in an internet desert. It gets no wired internet, no wired telephone service and weak and spotty cellphone service, with no prospect of improvement. I recently subscribed to the Starlink standard service. The equipment arrived promptly, setup was quick and easy, and the signal is rock solid, with no weather interruptions. Download speed is as fast as the wired internet service at our home in town.

The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB or Bureau) and the Office of Economics and Analytics (OEA) announced that Wavelength LLC, a Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF or Auction 904) long-form applicant, has defaulted. The Bureau has concluded its review of Wavelength’s long-form application in Arizona.

How should broadband adoption, affordability, and equity impact the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)’s assessment of the availability of broadband for all Americans? A review of recent research indicates that it is not enough for networks to meet just certain deployment benchmarks. Consumer behavior is part of the picture: We cannot reach our universal broadband goals without widespread adoption, and we cannot achieve universal broadband adoption if service is not affordable.

Free Press explains that the Federal Communications Commission's Title II authority allows it to safeguard Net Neutrality and hold companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon accountable to internet users across the United States. Title II is not just a legal framework that protects Net Neutrality. The ability to access quality broadband service no matter where one may live, or no matter one’s racial or ethnic identity, still matters. The ability to subscribe to broadband at an affordable price still matters.

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.