Divided FCC Votes to Proceed on Net Neutrality

SHARE THIS ARTICLE

UPDATE There’s no more kumbaya at the FCC. The 4-0 votes of the more than two recent years left the building yesterday as Commissioners debated and voted 3-2 to begin a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on classifying fixed and mobile broadband internet service as an essential “telecommunications” service under Title II of the Communications Act.

Given the highly contentious subject matter to be voted on, a statement was read at the top of the meeting, warning observers if they tried to interfere with the proceedings, they would be asked to leave, and their comments would not be included in the record. This harkens back to the day in 2017 when then-Chair Ajit Pai’s FCC voted to lift the Title II classification and a bomb threat was called into the building. The vote took place after security deemed the building safe. That’s why, before this meeting, Inside Towers reported, FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel called for a civil debate.  

It was the first Commission meeting for new Commissioner Anna Gomez. She, along with fellow Democrats Commissioner Geoffrey Starks and Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, voted for the item they say will restore open internet protections for consumers and businesses, as well as help protect public safety and national security. The Commission also will seek public comment on proposals to ensure broadband services have effective oversight.   

Republican Commissioners Brendan Carr and Nathan Simington dissented from the majority, saying the changes are not needed. Carr called the reinstatement of Title II “1930s-era regulation,” similar to that of European countries. Carr said during the COVID pandemic, European countries had to slow their internet speeds and the U.S. didn’t. “America’s networks are not only faster than those in Europe, they are more competitive. They cover a much higher percentage of households and benefit from levels of investment three times higher than what you are seeing in Europe,” Carr said in a lengthy statement.

Simington agreed ISPs here are not throttling, blocking or favoring paid content. “The notice today proposes rules unnecessary, dangerously broad and unlikely to survive review.” He and Carr have said the changes would be tantamount to rate regulation. “If we tried, it would be impossible to set a fair price. We couldn’t do it properly when we were regulating one phone company. How could we do this for dozens of ISP’s including satellites?” 

FCC officials have said they believe the NPRM would stand up to judicial reviews, Inside Towers reported.

Commissioner Gomez, who delivered her remarks in both English and Spanish, emphasized that the proceeding is “not about controlling internet content. it is not about stifling investment, regulating rates or reducing competition.” She and Starks emphasized that national regulation is needed to guarantee broadband access to people of color, Tribes and other historically disadvantaged populations.  

Rosenworcel said the pandemic proved “broadband is an essential service.” Reinstating Title II “would ensure that the internet remains open and a haven for creating without permission, building community beyond geography, and organizing without physical constraints,” she said.

By Leslie Stimson, Inside Towers Washington Bureau Chief

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.