Communications Act of 1934

Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel stated, "Today, there is no expert agency ensuring that the internet is fast, open, and fair. And for everyone, everywhere to enjoy the full benefits of the internet age, internet access needs to be more than just accessible and affordable. The internet needs to be open."

NCTA: The Internet & Cable Association President and CEO Michael Powell used an opening session at his industry’s annual tech trade show to launch a full-throated, very libertarian-leaning counter-offensive to the Federal Communications Commission's plan to reinstate net neutrality rules.

The Federal Communications Commission launched a new proceeding on restoring open internet protections for consumers and businesses. The FCC also will seek comment on proposals to ensure broadband services have effective oversight. If the proposals are adopted after the public comment period and review of that record, the FCC would once again be permitted to protect internet openness and competition, protect broadband networks from national security threats, and address public safety needs like internet outages.

1. Broadband is essential: A lot has changed since the previous Federal Communications Commission repealed net neutrality. A devastating pandemic reaffirmed the essential nature of broadband access to protect the health and economic security of all Americans.
2. Abdicated oversight: The 2017 FCC approach was not “light touch.” It was a complete abdication of authority.
3. Targeted approach: Chairwoman Rosenworcel’s approach is targeted, not heavy-handed.

The Federal Communications Commission will begin implementing President Biden’s plan for increasing government control of the Internet. There will be lots of talk about “net neutrality” and virtually none about the core issue before the agency: namely, whether the FCC should claim for itself the freewheeling power to micromanage nearly every aspect of how the Internet functions—from the services that consumers can access to the prices that can be charged. The entire debate over whether Title II regulations are necessary or justified was settled years ago.

The Federal Communications Commission is heading into the next round of Washington’s longest-running fight over technology policy. On Oct. 19 the agency is slated to take a preliminary vote to reassert its authority to regulate broadband providers, clearing the way to pass a version of the net neutrality rules that it eviscerated during the Trump administration.

We write to express our disappointment and opposition to your announcement that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will vote to reclassify fixed and mobile broadband as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Not only is this bad public policy, but it is also unlawful. Reclassification and the associated heavy-handed regulations that accompany this action continues to be a solution in search of a problem. We seek the following information by October 31, 2023:

Small rural internet service providers (ISPs) had until the end of September to tell the Federal Communications Commission whether they wanted to participate in the Enhanced ACAM program. The E-ACAM program extends subsidies to these small providers through 2038, and in exchange the providers will serve all locations in their territory with 100/20 Mbps broadband, making most of them ineligible for the BEAD program.

Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel announced her plan to restore the agency’s rightful authority to protect internet users. To undermine this effort, the industry has cranked up its Title II myth machine.

While this is not the first time the Federal Communications Commission has pursued Title II regulation purportedly to address net neutrality, it is the first time the FCC has reached beyond the no blocking, degrading, or prioritizing principles to which broadband providers already adhere. The FCC is veering into the complex realm of cybersecurity and national security via top-down regulation rather than collaborative partnership, a choice many experts view with skepticism.