Some Push for Net Neutrality Rules Without Entering Fight Over FCC Broadband Title II
Not everyone is taking sides in the brawl over whether the FCC should undo its Title II broadband regime undergirding net neutrality rules. Some commenters seek strong protections under other statutory authority, while others are focused on targeted broadband objectives such as ensuring Lifeline USF support, rural telecom advances or privacy.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
The FCC posted 314,898 more comments Wednesday by late afternoon, pushing the cumulative total to 10,045,883 in docket 17-108. There were 1.27 million results posted Tuesday, the day after the deadline for initial comments. Most comments by major parties were posted here Monday and Tuesday, with the agency's system apparently slowed somewhat each day by the crush.
Most stakeholders were divided, basically supporting or opposing the FCC's proposal to replace Title II with the less-regulatory Title I framework (see 1707180009). CenturyLink, Cox Communications and T-Mobile joined other ISPs calling for a rollback of Title II regulation, a call also backed by Cisco, Qualcomm, Nokia, Ericsson, the Information Technology Industry Council and ACT|The App Association.
But Microsoft said the FCC's focus on broadband providers is "flawed," calling enforceable rules for fixed and mobile broadband services "critical to continued investment and innovation" throughout the economy. "Now is not the time for the Commission to abandon its protection of an open internet," the software maker said, taking no position on Title II or other mandates.
The FCC could tap Section 706 to adopt targeted open internet protections to address anticompetitive harms without imposing common-carriage regulation under Title II, Akamai said, citing a 2014 Verizon v. FCC ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The Entertainment Software Association and New York City Council members also backed Section 706 open internet protections, as did the Computing Technology Industry Association under Title I.
The Communications Workers of America and NAACP called for "strong" open internet rules. They said it's "essential to establish a strong legal basis" and called Title II one approach, but also suggested following the Section 706 "blueprint" for "commercially reasonable" ISP-edge arrangements. They included a chart for 2014-16 showing major ISP capital expenditures totaled $218 billion but flatlined, while major edge capital expenditures were $82 billion and spiked in 2016. An MLB unit agreed the FCC should minimize regulation, but argued the rules "should be maintained." NARUC endorsed "any legal theory" filed that permits the FCC "to continue to enforce net neutrality protections."
Most net neutrality advocates say Title II is needed to uphold strong protections. Among the other parties backing Title II were: the California Public Utilities Commission, the World Wide Web Foundation, Engine, Etsy and various consumer/watchdog groups (here, here, here, here).
Several parties called for ensuring Lifeline low-income broadband support under any regime: TracFone Wireless, the Lifeline Connects Coalition and others (here, here, here). Whether under Title I or II, WTA urged the FCC to keep a role in monitoring broadband interconnection and middle-mile arrangements, while NTCA called for a "light touch regulatory backstop" that promotes universal service and consumer protection, such as on rural call completion. The Electronic Privacy Information Center urged the FCC to develop broadband privacy rules, whatever the classification.