The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has unveiled a proposal to reestablish regulations on high-speed internet providers, such as AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon, aiming to reinstate “net neutrality” for the broadband sector.
This initiative seeks to categorize internet service – including wired connections in residences and businesses, and mobile data on cellphones – as “essential telecommunications,” aligning it with traditional phone services.
According to sources, the draft rules would prohibit internet service providers (ISPs) from obstructing or diminishing access to online content and websites. This includes any selective acceleration of services for specific sites or for those that might pay additional fees. Such a move intends to eliminate potential “fast lanes” that could allow certain sites to buy a speed advantage over competitors.
These draft regulations, to be presented by FCC chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel at the National Press Club, resemble the ones from the Obama era. The previous regulations encountered opposition from the telecom and cable industries and were later repealed during the Trump administration. Should the FCC’s new effort gain traction, it could pave the way for additional broadband industry regulations, spanning areas like national security, public safety, and consumer privacy.
Rosenworcel is expected to highlight the crucial role of reliable internet access, a realization for many during the Covid-19 pandemic. She is also expected to emphasize the need for a unified national standard on net neutrality to promote rapid, cost-effective broadband coverage across the country. However, this initiative could face opposition from significant internet providers and spark public demonstrations, as witnessed in the past.
The introduction of these draft rules, especially after the recent confirmation of Anna Gomez as the agency’s fifth commissioner, signals one of Rosenworcel’s major endeavors. The previous deadlock in the FCC, with equal representation from both political factions, had stalled several significant initiatives.
Examples like the repealing and reinstating of net neutrality rules with the shift in administrations combined with a lack of federal legislation on the topic have created an unstable regulatory environment for ISPs. State laws have tried to bridge this gap but have resulted in a fragmented set of regulations. Should the FCC’s draft be approved next month, the public will have until mid-December to comment, with replies accepted through January. The final rules could be decided in subsequent months.
Consumer advocacy groups have consistently advocated for firm rules preventing ISPs from unjustly controlling online information. In contrast, ISPs argue that high-traffic websites should bear the cost for the network resources they consume.
The FCC’s proposal suggests revisiting Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. This move would regulate ISPs under Title II, granting the FCC explicit authority to enforce rules against site blocking, traffic throttling, and paid prioritization. These draft rules resemble the 2015 regulations, which were validated in 2016 by a federal appeals court. However, the rules were later reversed in 2017 during the Trump administration, taking effect in 2018.
Historically, net neutrality has been a bipartisan issue. Initial principles for an open internet were set during the George W. Bush administration, leading to attempts at concrete regulations in 2010 and 2015.
While the telecom and cable sectors have opposed Title II’s use for broadband regulation, citing potential government overreach and a potential decline in private broadband investments, Tuesday’s proposal is said to retain some of the promises made in 2015. These include refraining from directly setting internet service prices and not forcing ISPs to share their infrastructure.
This proposal could face both industry pushback and potential legal challenges. Although the 2015 rules were upheld on appeal, the context and perspective of the Supreme Court, especially in evaluating the power of federal agencies, could influence the outcome.