FCC

How Should the FCC Regulate Broadband? A Roundup of ‘Third Way’ Comments

WASHINGTON July 16, 2010 – After the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision upholding Comcast’s ability to thwart broadband traffic over the peer-to-peer file-sharing software BitTorrent, the Federal Communications Commission was faced with uncertainty in regulating broadband.

In order to give the FCC firmer ground to regulate internet services, agency Chairman Julius Genachowski announced a proposal that has been dubbed the “Third Way” between regulating and deregulating internet services.

Thursday was the deadline for comments from the public regarding the notice of inquiry which was issued in June. Consumer groups and content makers praised aspects of the “Third Way,” while internet service providers were largely opposed.

Published

13 years ago

July 16, 2010

Rahul Gaitonde

Supporters of the “Third Way” claimed that the FCC needed to reclassify broadband in order to allow for consumer protection.

Free Press, a media advocacy group, supports this reclassification, saying “a limited Title II classification will uphold the commonly shared principles of universal service, competition, interconnection, nondiscrimination, consumer protection, and reasoned deregulation — principles that created the Internet revolution.”

Title II refers to that portion of the Telecom Act that allows the FCC to regulate telephone companies as common carriers. Under a series of deregulatory moves in the 1990s and in the past decade, the FCC has placed internet services – as opposed to telecommunications services – under the less-regulatory framework of Title I.

These advocacy groups also contend that the “Third Way” will withstand judicial review. They cite the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Brand X Internet Services v. FCC decision, which granted the FCC the authority to make classification determinations.

“The Supreme Court has instructed that in matters of administrative policy, “change is not invalidating,” and that the forces of change do not always or necessarily point in the direction of deregulation. “Revisiting the classification determinations is an appropriate and much-needed exercise”

Internet telephone company Vonage supported the “Third Way.” but also said that the FCC had power under ancillary authority – or Title I – to achieve appropriate regulation of companies like Comcast.

The National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates supported reclassification, and said that the original classification of cable services as an information service was wrong.

NARUC said that this classification “has become ever more incorrect, inadequate, and destructive of broadband progress with each passing year.”

The Ohio Public Utility supported the “Third Way,” but wanted the ability to regulate some issues at the state level, such as universal service and E911, or advanced location-based 911 services.

The main opposition to the “Third Way” came from broadband providers including Verizon Communications, AT&T and Cox Communications.

Verizon called the third way “a return to the old way of antiquated common carriage regulation that was developed in the 1800s for monopoly transportation and utility services.”

The company said that the imposition of the “Third Way” would increased regulatory uncertainty. It also warned against applying these rules to the wireless broadband market, a relatively new market.

Verizon said that the FCC does not have the legal authority to make this change. “As the Commission itself has repeatedly determined, and the Supreme Court has affirmed, retail broadband Internet access offered to consumers is an integrated ‘information service,’ not a ‘telecommunications service’ subject to common carriage regulation under Title II.”

AT&T also expressed opposition reclassifying broadband under Title II. They said:

Reclassification of those providers as Title II “common carriers” would be unnecessary to advance any valid policy objective, would present risks and harms that dwarf any putative benefits, and would all but scuttle the Administration’s ambitious broadband agenda.”

AT&T said that “there is a far better way to achieve that agenda than trying to cram today’s broadband Internet access providers into an ill-fitting 20th century regulatory silo, as the NOI’s ‘third way’ proposal would do.”

Rather, Congress should update the Communications Act to “encourage greater consumer-oriented transparency by broadband providers.”

The Institute for Policy Innovation also opposed the “Third Way.” It said that increased regulation will simply hamper innovation. Instead, it proposed the creation of “Broadband Enterprise Zones.”

“In areas designated as “Broadband Enterprise Zones” (based on broadband mapping), broadband providers would receive federal tax credits which could be used to offset the company’s overall federal tax burden. And vouchers could be issued to homeowners to pay for installation and setup within the Enterprise Zone.”

Cox Communications also opposed the reclassification on the grounds that the FCC has repeatedly determined broadband internet service as an information service.

“Those determinations were based, properly, on the service provided to the customer, a service that uses telecommunications to provide classic information service functionalities. Attempting to change course now would be inconsistent with the facts and the law, and would have unintended consequences.”

The third set of comments assert that the FCC does not have the statuary authority to reclassify. The National Religious Broadcasters said , that the FCC needed to wait for statutory authority from Congress.

The Communications Workers of America said that the FCC’s proposal will face years in court, and that the best solution was targeted legislation. However, they said they understand that the FCC seeks to act. They endorsed the concept of using ancillary authority under Title I.

Alcatel-Lucent said that the FCC is moving too quickly and does not have the information or the authority to reclassify broadband services. The maker of telecommunications equipment said they would like Congress to debate the issue and then come to a legislative solution.

Up Next

Genachowski Announces Creation of Spectrum Data Inventory

Don't Miss

Baby’s Got Back, but Does America Got Net?

Rahul Gaitonde

Rahul Gaitonde has been writing for BroadbandBreakfast.com since the fall of 2009, and in May of 2010 he became Deputy Editor. He was a fellow at George Mason University’s Long Term Governance Project, a researcher at the International Center for Applied Studies in Information Technology and worked at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. He holds a Masters of Public Policy from George Mason University, where his research focused on the economic and social benefits of broadband expansion. He has written extensively about Universal Service Fund reform, the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program and the Broadband Data Improvement Act

3 Comments

Pingback: Tweets that mention BroadbandBreakfast.com: A Roundup of Third Way Comments -- Topsy.com

Broadband Mapping & Data

Robocalls, Rip and Replace, Pole Attachments: More Notes From the FCC Oversight Hearing

Commissioners and House lawmakers discussed key topics at a contentious hearing.

Published

5 days ago

December 1, 2023

Jake Neenan

Screenshot of commissioners at the hearing Thursday.

WASHINGTON, December 1, 2023 – All five Federal Communications Commissioners took part in a lengthy and at times contentious House oversight hearing on Thursday.

Commissioners urged Congress to restore the FCC’s authority to action spectrum, which expired in March and left the nation’s airwaves in limbo, and to fund the Affordable Connectivity Program, the low-income internet subsidy set to dry up in April of next year.

GOP lawmakers FCC Republicans also took the chance to slam efforts by the commission’s Democratic majority.

The discussion touched on other issues including robocall prevention, rip and replace funding, and pole attachments.

Robocalls

The commission has been taking action on preventing robocalls this year, kicking off an inquiry into using artificial intelligence to detect fraud, blocking call traffic from 20 providers for lax enforcement policies and issuing hundreds of millions in fines. In August the commission also expanded the STIR/SHAKEN regime – a set of measures to confirm caller identities – to all providers who handle call traffic.

FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel asked multiple times for three Congressional actions she said would help the commission crack down on scam calls: a new definition for “autodialer,” the ability to collect fines, and access to Bank Secrecy Act information.

The Supreme Court limited the definition of autodialers in 2021 to devices that store or produce phone numbers with random or sequential number generators. That leaves the scope of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which guides the FCC’s authority, “stuck in the nineties,” according to Rosenworcel.

“A lot of scam artists are using technologies no longer covered” by the act, she said. “We can’t go after them.”

On collecting robocall fines, that authority currently rests with the Department of Justice, and Rosenworcel is not the first to tell Congress the agency’s enforcement has been lax. Industry groups at an October Senate hearing cited slow DOJ action as a major reason FCC fines on the issue often go uncollected.

The Bank Secrecy Act requires financial institutions to keep records on certain transactions to help law enforcement agencies track money laundering and other criminal activity. The FCC cannot access information governed by the act, which Rosenworcel said would help the commission go after repeat scammers.

“These scam artists set up one company, we shut them down, they go and set another one up,” she said.

Rip and replace

Commissioners urged Congress to fund the rip and replace program. Congress allocated $1.9 billion to reimburse broadband companies for replacing network equipment from Chinese companies deemed to be national security threats, mainly Huawei and ZTE.

The FCC was tasked with overseeing the program and found in 2022 that another $3 billion would be needed to get the work done. The Biden administration joined a chorus of lawmakers and broadband companies in calling for Congress to fill the gap, but legislation on the issue has yet to be passed.

“We’re providing 40 cents on the dollar to a lot of small and rural carriers,” said Rosenworcel. “They need more funds to get the job done.”

The commission has been granting extensions to providers unable to get the work done on time. In addition to supply chain issues, some small providers cite a lack of funding as the reason they’re unable to replace insecure equipment.

Pole attachments

Commissioners expressed a willingness to shift some of the burden of utility pole replacements off of broadband providers as they attach new equipment.

“If a pole is getting replaced,” Commissioner Brendan Carr said, “there’s probably a role for the FCC to say that the pole owner should bear somewhere north of the cost of $0.”

The commission has authority in 26 states over most pole attachment deals between utility pole owners and telecommunications companies looking to expand their networks. The issue of who pays for poles that need to be replaced to accommodate more communications equipment is contentious, with telecoms arguing utilities force them to pay for replacing already junk poles.

After spending years sifting through thousands of comments, commissioners have apparently been persuaded. Rules up for a vote at the commission’s December meeting would limit the scenarios in which utilities could pass full replacement costs on to attachers.

Broadband funding map

Rosenworcel repeatedly asked lawmakers to work with the commission on ensuring its broadband funding map is kept up to date.

The FCC launched its funding map in May to keep track of the myriad federal broadband subsidy efforts and avoid funding the same areas multiple times. The Department of Agriculture, the FCC, and the Treasury Department each oversee separate broadband funding programs, in addition to the Commerce Department’s upcoming $42.5 billion broadband expansion effort.

The commission has signed memoranda of understanding with those agencies on providing data for the funding map, but Rosenworcel asked the subcommittee for help ensuring the agencies follow through and respond to FCC requests for their funding data.

“If you could help us make sure those other agencies respond to us with data, you’ll see where there are problems, duplication, areas we haven’t reached,” she said.

Broadband's Impact

House GOP Uses Oversight Hearing to Criticize FCC Actions

Partisan disputes return to FCC policies after years of a 2-2 split on the commission.

Published

5 days ago

December 1, 2023

Jake Neenan

Screenshot of Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers at the hearing Thursday.

WASHINGTON, December 1, 2023 – GOP lawmakers took the opportunity to slam recent Federal Communications Commission efforts at a House oversight hearing on Thursday.

That did not come as a surprise, with the communications and technology subcommittee branding the hearing as overseeing “President Biden’s broadband takeover.” Partisan disputes have resumed around FCC policies since the appointment of commissioner Anna Gomez, who gave Democrats a 3-2 majority on the commission.

The hearing also touched on spectrum policy and the Affordable Connectivity Program, which is still set to dry up in April 2024 despite months of calls for its renewal.

Digital discrimination

The FCC voted along party lines on November 15 to instate rules addressing gaps in broadband access along racial and class lines. Those rules are taking an approach industry groups opposed and allow the commission to take enforcement action against companies for practices that do not intentionally withhold broadband from protected groups.

Technology and Communications Subcommittee members and Republican commissioner Brendan Carr echoed talking points from an industry lobbying push that characterized the rules as a “micromanagement” effort to scrutinize routine business practices.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Washington, said “burdensome requirements like these will discourage deployment and harm our efforts to close the digital divide.”

Rodgers sparred with FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel on the issue, interrupting her answers to questions to reclaim time.

Rosenworcel, for her part, stuck to her argument that the rules are in line with the Infrastructure Act, which mandates the commission take action “preventing discrimination of access based on income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or national origin.”

“The language in this statute is exceptionally broad,” she said.

The act also directs the commission to take into account technical and economic feasibility of deploying networks in poor and rural areas, but Rosenworcel’s assurances that the FCC will do so have not convinced industry or Republicans.

Net neutrality

The commission also moved forward on plans to reinstate net neutrality rules in October. The rules would classify broadband internet as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, opening the industry up to more expansive regulatory oversight from the FCC.

Similar rules were in place for two years before being repealed by the Trump FCC in 2017.

Republican committee members grilled the commission on Democratic warnings that the repeal would result in widespread traffic throttling, which did not materialize at scale in Title II’s absence.

Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Bob Latta, R-Ohio, asked Rosenworcel “when the so-called net neutrality rules were repealed, did it end the internet as we know it today, yes or no?”

The commission chairwoman answered a string of similar questions by saying the anticlimactic end to Title II broadband rules was “a result of more than about a dozen states stepping in and developing their own net neutrality laws.”

Commissioner Carr also argued with Rosenworcel on Title II’s impact on national security, talking over each other at points. Carr said there had been “one briefing” in his six year tenure in which he was told about a security issue the government could not address without Title II oversight over broadband.

Rosenworcel said she has told national security authorities “over and over again” that without Title II authority, she cannot take requested actions to stop bad actors from hijacking traffic.

The commission is taking public comments on the proposed net neutrality rules until January 2024.

Broadband's Impact

FCC Pushes Congress on Spectrum Auction Authority, ACP Funding at Oversight Hearing

Commissioners from both parties emphasized the issues to the House Communications and Technology Subcommittee.

Published

6 days ago

November 30, 2023

Jake Neenan

Screenshot of FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel at the hearing Thursday.

WASHINGTON, November 30, 2023 – The Federal Communications Commission asked Congress to move on renewing the agency’s auction authority and funding the Affordable Connectivity Program at a House oversight hearing on Thursday.

“We badly need Congress to restore the agency’s spectrum auction authority,” said FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel at the hearing. “I have a bunch of bands that are sitting in the closet at the FCC.”

Rosenworcel pointed to 550 megahertz in the 12.7-13.25 GHz band. The commission would “be able to proceed to auction on that relatively quickly” if given the go ahead, she said.

The commission’s authority to auction spectrum expired for the first time in March after Congress failed to extend it. Auction authority lets the commission auction off and issue licenses allowing the use of certain electromagnetic frequency bands for wireless communication.

Repeated pushes to restore the ability, first handed to the commission in 1996, have stalled in the face of gridlock on Capitol Hill.

Opening up spectrum is becoming more necessary as emerging technologies and expanding networks compete for finite airwaves. The Joe Biden administration unveiled a plan this month to begin two-year studies of almost 2,800 MHz of government spectrum for potential commercial use.

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr said that’s not fast enough. “I would have had the spectrum plan actually free up more than zero megahertz of spectrum,” he said.

Rosenworcel said the FCC was in talks with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the agency that wrote up the plan, during the drafting process. When asked if the NTIA followed her recommendations, she said she would “like everyone to move faster and have a bigger pipeline in general.”

Commissioners expressed support for a House bill that would give the FCC temporary authority to issue the licenses it already auctioned off for 5G networks in the 2.5 GHz band. An identical bill passed the Senate in September.

T-Mobile took home more than 85 percent of the 8,000 total licenses in the band for $304 million, but the company and other winners cannot legally use their spectrum until the FCC issues the licenses.

Affordable Connectivity Program

Also at the top of commissioners’ minds was the Affordable Connectivity Program. Set up with $14 billion from the Infrastructure Act, the program provides a monthly internet subsidy for 22 million low-income households.

The program is expected to run out of money in April 2024.

“We have come so far, we can’t go back,” Rosenworcel said. “We need Congress to continue to fund this program. If it does not, in April of next year we’ll have to unplug households.”

The Biden administration asked Congress in October for $6 billion in the upcoming appropriations bill to keep the ACP afloat through December 2024. The government has been funded since September by stop-gap measures, with House Republicans ousting former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-CA, over his unwillingness to cut spending and making similar demands of his replacement.

A coalition of 26 governors joined the chorus of calls to extend the program on November 16. Lawmakers, activists, and broadband companies have been sounding the alarm on the program’s expiration for months as the $42.5 billion Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment effort gets underway. Without the subsidy, experts have said, households could be unable to access the new infrastructure built by BEAD.

Representative Yvette Clarke, D-NY, said of the ACP shortfall that she is “looking forward to introducing legislation on that very subject before Congress concludes its work for the year.”