Industry Warns of Competition Woes With Broadband Title II Reclassification
Industry opposition to an FCC proposal reclassifying broadband as a Title II service under the Communications Act continued in reply comments posted through Thursday in docket 23-320 (see 2312150020). Most groups warned reclassification would stifle competition. Some consumer groups disagreed, urging the FCC to reinstate its net neutrality rules without preempting state and local governments.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The proposal is a "misguided attempt to regulate a vibrant, competitive marketplace in ways that will undermine the demonstrable progress of the past six years," said USTelecom. T-Mobile warned the proposal "may discourage competition and investment and reduce the pace of innovation in the broadband industry." Altice agreed, saying the record shows that approach is "flawed as a matter of law and policy and would impose significant burdens on providers of all sizes." The Wireless Infrastructure Association echoed those thoughts in similar comments.
"Title II reclassification will not protect Internet openness, national security, or public safety," said the Free State Foundation. It added there's no evidence that ISPs block or throttle service and the FCC's proposal likely "runs afoul" of the U.S. Supreme Court's major questions doctrine because "Congress nowhere provided a clear statement of authority" for the commission to transition broadband networks into public utilities and "comprehensively regulate them for security and safety purposes."
Reclassification would "undermine the market dynamics that have enabled the broad-based benefits of connectivity we see today," said the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. American broadband networks have "flourished" under Title I classification, said the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, adding that none of the comments gave a "persuasive reason to believe that Title II classification is necessary." The record "fails to identify good-faith reasons for restoring the heavy-handed framework first imposed by the 2015 Open Internet Order," said the R Street Institute. "This agency’s proposal has become far removed from the ideal of a free and open internet," the group said: "By definition, a network buried in regulation is anything but free and open."
The broadband market is "operating efficiently and in a manner that continues to generate substantial user benefits," said NTCA. The group warned that small providers would "suffer potential burdens and risks should reclassification be imposed," which the Wireless ISP Association agreed with in similar comments. Fixed broadband service has "flourished" under Title I regulation, said ACA Connects, and Title II regulation would "sap resources and time" from smaller providers. CTIA agreed and said there's "no evidence of any harms" warranting reclassification.
The FCC's proposal goes "far beyond net neutrality," empowering the agency to "set broadband prices, force network builders to share access to their infrastructure with competitors, and obtain commission approval before launching new products or discontinuing ones that are obsolete," said the Progressive Policy Institute. The proposal is "untenable as a legal matter and misguided as a policy matter," said NCTA and a coalition of state cable and television associations.
Several consumer advocacy groups and local officials disagreed. There's a "clear need for Title II classification and net neutrality rules," said Public Knowledge. The "fundamental nature of broadband internet access as a mass market transmission service has not changed," said Free Press. ISPs "still have strong incentives to discriminate in the pursuit of new revenue streams," it added.
States will "be hampered in protecting consumers and ensuring the safe and reliable operation of communications facilities located in public streets and highways" without reclassification, said the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates, Connecticut Office of State Broadband and Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel in joint comments. A coalition of local governments urged that the FCC "decline industry commenters’ request that it use this proceeding to make sweeping declarations preempting state and local authority" over broadband. Take an "incremental" approach to preemption after reclassification, said the Communications Workers of America.
A coalition of accessibility advocacy organizations urged that the FCC proceed with reclassification. The coalition, which included TDIforAccess, Communications Service for the Deaf, Hearing Loss Association of America and the National Association of the Deaf, said that not doing so "distorts the marketplace for accessible online services," including advanced communications services as defined by the Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010.