I'm waiting to see what's actually in the rules. I want to be happy and excited for this, but there has to be some sort of catch.
Here you go:
Fact Sheet: Chairman Wheeler Proposes New Rules for Protecting the Open Internet
Chairman Wheeler is proposing clear, sustainable, enforceable rules to preserve and protect the open
Internet as a place for innovation and free expression. His common-sense proposal would replace,
strengthen and supplement FCC rules struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit more than one year ago. The draft Order supports these new rules with a firm legal
foundation built to withstand future challenges. The Chairman?s comprehensive proposal will be voted on
the FCC?s February 26 open meeting.
Consumers and Innovators Need an Open Internet
An open Internet allows consumers to access the legal content and applications that they choose online,
without interference from their broadband network provider. It fosters innovation and competition by
ensuring that new products and services developed by entrepreneurs aren?t blocked or throttled by
Internet service providers putting their own profits above the public interest. An open Internet allows free
expression to blossom without fear of an Internet provider acting as a gatekeeper. And it gives innovators
predictable rules of the road to deliver new products and services online.
Legal Authority: Reclassifying Broadband Internet Access under Title II
The Chairman?s proposal provides the strongest legal foundation for the Open Internet rules by relying on
multiple sources of authority: Title II of the Communications Act and Section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. In doing so, the proposal provides the broad legal certainty required
for rules guaranteeing an open Internet, while refraining (or ?forbearing?) from enforcing provisions of
Title II that are not relevant to modern broadband service. Together Title II and Section 706 support clear
rules of the road, providing the certainty needed for innovators and investors, and the competitive choices
and freedom demanded by consumers.
First,
the Chairman?s proposal would reclassify ?broadband Internet access service??that?s the
retail broadband service Americans buy from cable, phone, and wireless providers?as a
telecommunications service under Title II. We believe that this step addresses any limitations that
past classification decisions placed on our ability to adopt strong Open Internet rules, as
interpreted by the D.C. Circuit in the Verizon case last year. But just in case, we also make clear
that if a court finds that it is necessary to classify the service that broadband providers make
available to ?edge providers,? it too is a Title II telecommunications service. (To be clear, this is
not a ?hybrid?? both the service to the end user and to the edge provider are classified under
Title II.)
Second,
the proposal finds further grounding in Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of
1996. Notably, the Verizon court held that Section 706 is an independent grant of authority to the
Commission that supports adoption of Open Internet rules. Using it here?without the limitations
of the common carriage prohibition that flowed from earlier classification decisions?bolsters the
Commission?s authority.
Third,
provisions on mobile broadband also rest on Title III of the Communications Act. Among
other things, the draft Order persuasively rebuts claims that Title III does not allow classification
of mobile broadband as a telecommunications service.
Finally,
Title II?s ?just and reasonable? standard and the Verizon court?s finding that Section 706
authorizes the FCC to protect the ?virtuous circle? of network innovation and infrastructure
development provide standards for the FCC to protect Internet openness against new tactics that
would close the Internet.
New Rules to Protect an Open Internet
While the FCC?s 2010 open Internet rules had limited applicability to mobile broadband, the new rules ?
in their entirety ? would apply to mobile broadband, recognizing advances in technology and the growing
significance of wireless broadband access in recent years. Today, 55 percent of Internet traffic is carried
over wireless networks. This proposal extends protection to consumers no matter how they access the
Internet, whether they on their desktop computer or their mobile devices.
Bright Line Rules: The first three rules would ban practices that are known to harm the Open Internet:
No Blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services,
or non-harmful devices.
No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the
basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over
other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration ? in other words, no ?fast lanes.? This rule also
bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates.
A Standard for Future Conduct: Because the Internet is always growing and changing, there must be a
known standard by which to determine whether new practices are appropriate or not. Thus, the proposal
would create a general Open Internet conduct standard that ISPs cannot harm consumers or edge
providers.
Greater Transparency:
The rules described above would restore the tools necessary to address specific conduct by broadband providers that might harm the Open Internet. But the Chairman?s proposal alsorecognizes the critical role of transparency in a well-functioning broadband ecosystem. The proposalenhances existing transparency rules, which were not struck down by the court.Reasonable Network Management: For the purposes of the rules, other than paid prioritization, an ISP
may engage in reasonable network management. This recognizes the need of broadband providers to manage the technical and engineering aspects of their networks.
In assessing reasonable network management, the Commission?s proposed standard would take
account of the particular engineering attributes of the technology involved?whether it be fiber,
DSL, cable, unlicensed wireless, mobile, or another network medium.
ï‚· However, the network practice must be primarily used for and tailored to achieving a legitimate
network management?and not commercial?purpose. For example, a provider can?t cite
reasonable network management to justify reneging on its promise to supply a customer with
?unlimited? data.
Broad Protection
Some data services do not go over the public Internet, and therefore are not ?broadband Internet access?
services subject to Title II oversight (VoIP from a cable system is an example, as is a dedicated heartmonitoring
service). The Chairman?s proposal will ensure these services do not undermine the
effectiveness of the open Internet rules. Moreover, broadband providers? transparency disclosures will
continue to cover any offering of such non-Internet data services ?ensuring that the public and the
Commission can keep a close eye on any tactics that could undermine the Open Internet rules. 3
Interconnection: New Authority to Address Complaints About ISPs? Practices
For the first time the Commission would have authority to hear complaints and take appropriate
enforcement action if necessary, if it determines the interconnection activities of ISPs are not just and
reasonable, thus allowing it to address issues that may arise in the exchange of traffic between massmarket
broadband providers and edge providers.
Forbearance
Congress requires the FCC to refrain from enforcing ? forbear from ? provisions of the Communications
Act that are not in the public interest. The proposed Order applies some key provisions of Title II, and
forbears from most others. There is no need for any further proceedings before the forbearance is
adopted. The proposed Order would apply fewer sections of Title II than have applied to mobile voice
networks for over twenty years.
Major Provisions of Title II that the Order WILL APPLY:
- The proposed Order applies ?core? provisions of Title II: Sections 201 and 202 (e.g., no
?unjust and unreasonable practices?
- Allows investigation of consumer complaints under section 208 and related enforcement
provisions, specifically sections 206, 207, 209, 216 and 217
- Protects consumer privacy under Section 222
- Ensures fair access to poles and conduits under Section 224, which would boost the
deployment of new broadband networks
- Protects people with disabilities under Sections 225 and 255
- Bolsters universal service fund support for broadband service in the future through partial
application of Section 254.
Major Provisions Subject to Forbearance:
- Rate regulation: the Order makes clear that broadband providers shall not be subject to
tariffs or other form of rate approval, unbundling, or other forms of utility regulation
- Universal Service Contributions: the Order DOES NOT require broadband providers to
contribute to the Universal Service Fund under Section 254
- The Order will not impose, suggest or authorize any new taxes or fees ? there will be
no automatic Universal Service fees applied and the congressional moratorium on
Internet taxation applies to broadband.
Fostering Investment and Competition
All of this can be accomplished while encouraging investment in broadband networks. To preserve
incentives for broadband operators to invest in their networks, Chairman Wheeler?s proposal will
modernize Title II, tailoring it for the 21st century, encouraging Internet Service Providers to invest in the
networks American increasingly rely on.
The proposed order does not include utility-style rate regulation:
- No rate regulation or tariffs
- No last-mile unbundling
- No burdensome administrative filing requirements or accounting standards.
A Case Study: Investment in the Wireless Industry
For 21 years the wireless industry has been governed by Title II-based rules that forbear from traditional
phone company regulation. The wireless industry has invested over $400 billion under similar rules,
proving that modernized Title II regulation can support investment and competition.
Fewer provisions will apply to ISPs than were applied to wireless carriers.
When Title II was first applied to mobile, voice was the predominant mobile service. During the period
between 1993 and 2009, carriers invested heavily, including more than $270 billion in building out their
wireless networks, an increase of nearly 2,000%.
?FCC?
