Hill Republicans Make Final Case Against FCC's Draft Net Neutrality Order
Republican members of the House and Senate Commerce committees echoed arguments from opponents of the FCC’s draft net neutrality order in a letter to Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel ahead of the commission’s expected adoption of the new rules (see 2404190038). The panels’ Republicans are eying a range of potential actions countering the net neutrality bid (see 2404180058). Meanwhile, House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Bob Latta (Ohio) and 11 other Republicans urged Rosenworcel last Thursday to “leverage all resources at its disposal for a successful 5G Fund that maximizes the reach and effectiveness of the program.”
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!
House Commerce Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington and the other Republicans told Rosenworcel they believe the net neutrality draft “would regulate the broadband industry with an even heavier hand than” the FCC used in its rescinded order that reclassified broadband as a Communications Act Title II service. “We ask that you end this proceeding and maintain the existing classification” of broadband as a Communications Act Title I service, “which is faithful to the law as drafted by Congress,” the lawmakers told Rosenworcel. FCC adoption of the proposed rules will put the commission “on a course that would assuredly be reversed in” federal courts in line with the Supreme Court’s adoption of the major questions doctrine in its 2022 West Virginia v. EPA ruling (see 2206300066).
“Congress’s decision to treat broadband Internet access as an information service” in the 1996 Telecom Act, “rather than a telecommunications service, was a deliberate policy choice,” the Republicans said. Title II reclassification “would give the Commission largely unfettered power to impose (and allow states to impose) rate regulation, tariffing requirements, unbundling obligations, entry and exit regulation, and taxation of broadband.” Congress “has had many opportunities to give the FCC such power, yet it has never done so in any of its ample legislative enactments regarding broadband over the past two decades,” the lawmakers said: “Legislators have repeatedly considered but ultimately rejected efforts to replace the longstanding light-touch framework with common carrier regulation.”
“The 5G Fund should preserve and expand next-generation mobile wireless services in rural America,” Latta and other Republicans told Rosenworcel. “An appropriately timed and well-managed 5G Fund is critical to spurring economic growth and innovation that comes with ubiquitous connectivity in areas of our country with the highest need.” The draft 5G Fund order Rosenworcel circulated in March is expected to have several gaps that will need addressing with a Further NPRM on a tribal reserve but also through auction public notices (see 2403260052). The Competitive Carriers Association, which raised concerns earlier this month about the 5G Fund proposal (see 2404160053), praised the Republicans’ letter.
The FCC should “carefully consider and account for the impact of investments funded by” the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act “to maximize the reach and efficiency of the 5G Fund,” Republican lawmakers said. They argued the FCC should factor in information from projects using funding from NTIA’s broadband equity, access and deployment program “to avoid duplicating efforts and to maximize use of limited funds.” Congress “has been unequivocally clear about the need for accurate broadband maps before the disbursement of federal funds,” the lawmakers said: “It is vital for policy decisions such as 5G Fund eligibility and funding to be based on mapping data that is accurate and has undergone a comprehensive mobile challenge process.”