NTIA's Roth Targets Net Neutrality, Duplicate Funding

In remarks delivered at the Hudson Institute on October 28, NTIA Administrator Arielle Roth announced implementation changes to the $42.45 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program regarding two topics of substantial concern for Free State Foundation scholars: (1) the imposition of so-called "net neutrality" obligations, and (2) the possibility of overlapping federal subsidies.

With respect to the former, Roth clarified that state-level net neutrality statutes represent a form of rate regulation inconsistent with statutory language found in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act – "[n]othing in this title may be construed to authorize the Assistant Secretary or the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to regulate the rates charged for broadband service" – and therefore may not be applied to BEAD Program subgrantees, not just in subsidized areas, but statewide:

State-level net neutrality rules—itself a form of rate regulation—create a patchwork of conflicting regulations that raise compliance costs and deter investment…. To protect the BEAD investment, we are clarifying that BEAD providers must be protected throughout their service area in a state, while the provider is still within its BEAD period of performance. Specifically, any state receiving BEAD funds must exempt BEAD providers throughout their state footprint, from broadband-specific economic regulations, such as price regulation and net neutrality.

Regarding the latter, Roth announced a straightforward solution to the duplicate-funding risk I have highlighted on many occasions, most recently in "The Failure's in the Footnote: Agencies Must Improve Broadband Expenditure Coordination Efforts," a January 2025 Perspectives from FSF Scholars:

NTIA will require states to have providers certify in writing that they will not require or take additional federal subsidies—including operational subsidies—to complete or operate their BEAD projects…. BEAD was designed to close broadband gaps once and for all, not create another cycle of dependency. Congress envisioned "future-proof" networks that would stand on their own, not require permanent federal subsidies or future bailouts.

These changes are of a piece with other action Roth has taken to realign the BEAD Program with congressional intent, as well as ongoing efforts to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse.

Video of Roth's remarks can be found here.

Pennsylvania Bill Would Turn Broadband Internet Networks into Public Utilities

On March 17, Pennsylvania House Bill 924 was referred to a legislative committee in that state's lower chamber. If it were to become law, the bill would change the definition of "public utility" under Pennsylvania law to include "[p]roviding persons with the ability to connect to the Internet through equipment that is located in this Commonwealth." In short, PA House Bill 924 is a state net neutrality bill, that would impose no blocking, no throttling, no paid prioritization, and other restrictions on provider network management, and delegate authority to the state's public utility commission to regulate broadband Internet access services.  

PA House Bill 924 was filed in the wake of the Sixth Circuit's March 11 order denying a rehearing en banc on that court’s January 2 three-judge panel decision to vacate the FCC's 2024 Title II Order. The state bill also follows closely on the heels of the Supreme Court's February 24 order deny a rehearing on its prior order to deny a writ of certiorari in New York State Telecommunications Association v. James. The denial of a rehearing in James leaves in place a Second Circuit decision from April 2024 that upheld New York State’s Affordable Broadband Act that imposed rate regulation on interstate Internet broadband access services offered by broadband providers in that state.

 

It seems unlikely, if not implausible, that Congress intended to open up jurisdictionally interstate information services (previously known as "enhanced services") like broadband access to state regulation when it established non-regulated or lightly-lightly regulated Title I classification for "information services" in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. But according to three circuit courts of appeal, that apparently is what Congress did. The Second, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits – have concluded that the FCC's decision in the 2017 Restoring Internet Freedom order to classify broadband access services as Title I services had the effect of removing the agency's jurisdiction over interstate broadband services, thus preventing the Commission from preempting state public utility regulation of those same services. 

 

For some further context, the FCC's proceeding that led up to the FCC's 2024 Title II Order cited zero instances of blocking, throttling, or harmful paid prioritization arrangements. Moreover, all or nearly all broadband ISPs in America have terms of service pledges to not engage in blocking, throttling, or harmful paid prioritization. So long as broadband access services are Title I "information services" (and not Title II "telecommunications services") those service term pledges are enforceable by the Federal Trade Commission under its authority to address unfair and deceptive trade practices. 

 

Expect the issue of state-level public utility regulation of broadband Internet access services, including price controls, to be a subject of discussion at the Free State Foundation's Seventeenth Annual Policy Conference – #FSFConf17 – on March 25, in Washington, D.C. Register today for the conference. 

PRESS RELEASE: The Sixth Circuit's Denial of Rehearing Should Be Net Neutrality's Death Knell

 

Free State Foundation President Randolph May released the following statement regarding the Sixth Circuit’s denial of a petition to rehear a panel’s January 2 decision overturning the FCC’s latest net neutrality regulations: 

“The Sixth Circuit’s denial of a petition for a rehearing en banc of a panel’s January 2, 2025, decision overturning the Biden FCC’s imposition of a public utility-like regulatory regime on broadband providers under the rubric of so-called 'net neutrality' should not be surprising. After all, six different Sixth Circuit judges already had ruled that the FCC’s regulations were unlawful, or in the case of the earlier stay of the FCC’s order, likely unlawful. Indeed, not one judge requested a vote on the rehearing petition.

 

“What would be surprising now — and a fruitless waste of time and resources — would be if the pro-public utility regulation advocates continued to pursue further litigation. There is no evidence of demonstrable consumer harm or marketplace failure that would justify the type of public utility regime that the Biden FCC sought to impose on broadband providers. In any event, the appropriate place for establishing a proper (hopefully deregulatory) framework for broadband policy, if a new framework is needed, is Congress."  

Court Hears Arguments on Challenges to FCC's New Title II Order

On October 31, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit heard oral arguments in case MCP No. 185 Open Internet Rule. The case consolidates several legal challenges against the FCC's April 2024 Securing and Safeguarding the Open Internet Order. The Commission's order turned broadband Internet access services into a public utility and subjected broadband Internet service providers (ISPs) to rate regulation.

By an August 1, 2024, order, a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit stayed the Commission's order pending resolution of legal merits of challenges to that order. The court's decision to stay the agency's order was discussed in an August 23 Perspectives from FSF Scholars by FSF President Randolph May, "The Sixth Circuit Stays the FCC's Latest Net Neutrality Flip-Flop." A different panel was designated to decide the legal merits.

 

Oral arguments before the three-judge merits panel lasted approximately one hour. Judge Raymond M. Kethledge pressed legal counsel on the meaning of statutory terms – such as "information services" under Title I of the Communications and "telecommunications services" under Title II. Other judges expressed greater interest in the "major questions doctrine." They pointedly asked if the "major questions doctrine" is still operative following the Supreme Court's decision in Loper-Bright v. Raimondo and whether reclassifying broadband Internet access services under Title II and subjecting it to public utility regulation and rate controls amounts to a matter of economic and political significance under the "major questions doctrine." 

 

The Free State Foundation's 2017 initial comments and reply comments in the FCC's Restoring Internet Freedom proceeding emphasized the statutory definitional case for why broadband Internet access services are Title I "information services." 

 

Moreover, FSF's 2023 initial comments and reply comments in the Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet proceeding explained why reclassifying broadband Internet access services under Title II and thereby subjecting those services to a public utility regime with rate regulation triggers the "major questions doctrine." That is, turning broadband ISPs into public utilities and asserting control over their rates is a politically and economically significant matter. Congress nowhere provided the FCC clear authority to make such a momentous decision. 

 

The Sixth Circuit panel that issued the August 2024 stay decision in the MCP No. 185 Open Internet Rule concluded that the FCC's order likely violated the "major questions doctrine." But the Sixth Circuit's merits panel that just held oral arguments will offer its view in due time. The judges will more comprehensively answer the disputed questions about the Commission’s authority.

Joint Resolution in House Would Repeal FCC's New Title II Order

On May 23, Rep. Bob Latta announced that he had introduced a Congressional Review Act (CRA) joint resolution of disapproval to overturn the FCC's Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet Order. By a 3-2 vote, the Commission reclassified broadband Internet access services as "telecommunications services" under Title II of the Communications Act, subjecting advanced broadband networks to public utility regulation. 

Rep. Latta deserves credit for introducing this CRA joint resolution. The House of Representatives should give the legislation due consideration. 

 

The CRA provides a fast-track process for Congress to repeal new agency regulations. For helpful background on the CRA in the context of broadband regulatory policy, see FSF Board of Academic Advisors' Member Daniel Lyons' June 2018 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "The Congressional Review Act and the Toxic Politics of Net Neutrality."

 

The Free State Foundation filed public comments and reply comments with the FCC in opposition to public utility regulation. Several Perspectives from FSF Scholars have been published critiquing the imposition of public utility restrictions on broadband Internet networks," including my May 21 Perspectives, "The FCC's New Title II Order Allows Harmful Rate Regulation."

PRESS RELEASE: The FCC's Democrat Majority Converts Internet Providers Into Public Utilities

Regarding today's action by the FCC classifying Internet providers as public utilities, the following statement may be attributed to Free State Foundation President Randolph May and Director of Policy Studies Seth Cooper:

The FCC's vote to convert broadband Internet providers into regulated public utilities is likely the most momentous power grab by the administrative state thus far in the 21st century. Without any evidence of present consumer or competitive harm, the FCC's Democrat majority has asserted far-reaching government control over Internet providers and the Internet's physical infrastructure. Rarely, if ever, has an administrative agency attempted to seize so much power based on so little evidence. The FCC's action is based only on empty claims of speculative harms. The result almost certainly will be a chilling of investment and innovation.

Unlike most claims for the imposition of public utility regulation, the FCC in this case does not even try to justify its action based on the claims of Internet provider market power. Indeed, it couldn't if it tried, because the high-speed broadband market has become effectively competitive, with cable, fiber, fixed wireless, mobile, and satellite platforms providing consumers with choices. And the record is unequivocal that broadband providers do not block or throttle their subscribers' free speech or access to content of their choice. 

 

The Commission's novel late-blooming invocation national security and public safety as a justification for asserting government control over Internet providers is disingenuous. The order fails to identify any specific security or safety harms or adopt any new targeted security or safety rules to address them.

 

Finally, and importantly, the FCC's action almost certainly is unlawful and will fail under the Supreme Court’s Major Questions Doctrine. Congress never clearly authorized such a politically and economically significant assertion of government control over the Internet.

Don't

At a public meeting on April 25, the Democrat majority on the Federal Communications Commission is expected to adopt new regulations that convert broadband Internet service providers into common carriers akin to public utilities. 

I have just one word of advice: “Don’t!”

 

Oh well, we know that doesn’t work in all instances, foreign or domestic. Not really much drama here. Nevertheless, I am disappointed and baffled that the FCC is determined to pursue such an unwise course, one very likely to be held unlawful.

 

As Ronald Reagan famously declared in 1980 in the second presidential debate with Jimmy Carter: “There you go again!”

 

Well, here we go again. I’ve been opposing proposals to apply Analog Age telephone utility regulations to Digital Age broadband Internet service providers (ISPs) for over two decades now. With so many other important issues confronting communications policymakers today, such as closing remaining digital divides in broadband deployment and adoption and ensuring the availability of more mid-band spectrum for private sector use, the FCC’s time and resources would be so much better spent on those matters rather than “net neutrality.”

 

Regarding the Commission’s proposal, Free State Foundation scholars have filed nearly 100 pages of comments and reply comments with the Commission. These comments treat both the policy and legal issues in a detailed and comprehensive fashion. Additionally, recently we have filed two ex parte submissions for the record, here and here.

 

I won’t endeavor to even summarize all the extensive arguments in those papers here. Rather, as the Commission vote nears, I offer a few big-picture observations in the nature of “closing thoughts.” Again, each is addressed more comprehensively in our filed papers.

 

·      As I said, I have opposed the imposition of a common carrier regime on broadband ISPs for two decades now. Regardless of whether you agreed with my position in 2004, it is surely the case, in 2024, with the demonstrable increase in facilities-based broadband marketplace competition, coupled with ongoing rapid technological innovation, that the case for imposing common carrier regulation today is considerably weaker than it was even in 2015. That was the last time the FCC voted to regulate ISPs as common carriers.

 

·      This is one of the very rare rulemakings across the administrative state in which substantial burdensome regulatory mandates are proposed without any credible evidence of present harm recited in the proposal. The Commission’s supposed support for the rules is based entirely on a very few old claimed (but disputable) incidents, coupled with plenty of conjecture about what ISPs could or might do, but haven’t done. After the silly dire predictions of utility regulation advocates in 2017 that predicted “the end of the Internet as we know it” and that “you’ll get the Internet one word at a time” – and more – if the common carrier regime was eliminated, there is no justification for according any credibility to predictions now regarding what ISPs might or could do.

 

·      Absent any credible evidence of present harm, and the indisputable record of utility advocates’ wrong-headed predictions of speculative future harms, it is arbitrary and capricious, and inconsistent with any notions of a sound cost-benefit analysis, to risk ongoing investment and innovation by ISPs by virtue of imposition of a utility regulation straight-jacket.

 

·      Unlike the last time the FCC imposed common carrier regulations on ISPs in 2015, the Supreme Court has now embedded the Major Questions Doctrine in its jurisprudence. In short, this means that agencies may not decide questions of extraordinary economic and political significance without a clear congressional authorization for the power it claims. The absence of such a clear congressional authorization here renders the Commission’s forthcoming action very vulnerable as a matter of law – as two former Solicitors General who served under President Barack Obama have written. They contend that classifying ISPs as common carriers without congressional authorization would run afoul of the major questions doctrine.

 

·      In one tell-tale sign of this legal vulnerability, Chief Justice Roberts, in his opinion for the Court in West Virginia v. EPA, quoted from then-Judge Kavanaugh’s dissent on the denial of rehearing in United States Telecom Assn. v. FCC: “We presume that ‘Congress intends to make major policy decisions itself, not leave those decisions to agencies.’” The “major policy decision” to which then-Judge Kavanaugh referred, of course, and which Chief Justice Roberts pointedly highlighted in West Virginia, is whether the FCC possesses authority to impose common carrier regulation on ISPs – the very same question that the FCC is now serving up again to the courts.

 

·      There are many factors, addressed in our comments and in a recent Perspectives from FSF Scholars by my colleague Seth Cooper, supporting the contention that the Commission’s proposal presents a “major question” of extraordinary economic or political significance. One warrants special mention here. I have pointed to Chairwoman Rosenworcel’s public statement, in announcing the FCC’s proposed action, inviting proponents of the common carrier regulation “to make some noise” and “raise a ruckus.” In over 45 years of experience in communications law and administrative law generally, including service as Chair of the ABA’s Section of Administrative Law, a Public Member of the Administrative Conference of the United States, and a Fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration, I am unaware of any other agency head or commissioner inviting advocates to “raise a ruckus” and “make some noise” in an ordinary rulemaking proceeding. Thus, Chairwoman Rosenworcel’s appeal is noteworthy as an indication that she considers the Commission’s action to be of extraordinary economic and political significance, warranting a call to popular action beyond the normal public participation expected in the dozens of ordinary rulemaking proceedings considered in any given year.

 

All things considered, I’d say, “Don’t!” Or to put a finer point on it, don’t convert Internet service providers into public utilities.

FCC's Misleading Rehash of 2018 Fire Incident Doesn't Justify Title II

On Monday, April 8, FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel is set to join the Santa Clara County Fire Chief in California for a media event to discuss the Commission's proposal to transform broadband Internet networks into public utilities. According to a media advisory, Chairwoman Rosenworcel "chose to travel to the Bay Area to highlight an incident involving the Santa Clara County Fire Department where their internet access was throttled in the midst of their public safety response to the largest fire on record in California history." 

But there is a problem with Chairwoman Rosenworcel's apparent attempt to turn that bygone matter into a media flash point for public utility regulation. The July 2018 "wildfire incident" involving the Santa Clara County Fire Department was not a "net neutrality" violation.

One of the major flaws of the Biden FCC's proposed Internet regulation plan is that there is no existing problem that would justify such heavy-handed government controls. All or nearly all broadband providers in the nation pledge, in legally enforceable terms of service, to not block or throttle their subscribers' Internet access. There is a lack of real-world examples of broadband providers engaged in discriminatory blocking or throttling. The July 2018 "wildfire incident" provides no such example and its occurrence certainly doesn't justify Title II reclassification of broadband services.

 

I wrote about the July 2018 "wildfire incident" back in an August 2018 FSF Blog post, "Attempt to Turn Usage-Based Pricing into Net Neutrality Issue Is Non-Starter." To briefly recap, the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District signed up for a lower-tiered mass-market retail broadband Internet service plan with a monthly so-called "data cap" that resulted in slower speeds when the cap was exceeded. Near the end of July 2018, while a massive fire was blazing, the Fire District experienced exceeded its service plan's data allotment. Although the broadband service provider had a policy of making exceptions for emergencies, a customer service employee did not execute that request and the Fire District experience slowed service for some time thereafter. The broadband provider later apologized for the mistake and changed their policy to prevent that sort of result from happening again.

Although supporters of public utility regulation almost immediately made noise about the 2018 wildfire incident, there was no underlying net neutrality violation. Even if the 2015 Title II Order had remained in force in 2018, the usage-based pricing plan that the Santa Clara County Central Fire District subscribed to would have been permissible. As I explained in my August 2018 blog post: 

Usage-based pricing with data allowances was affirmed under the now-repealed 2015 Obama FCC Title II Order. According to paragraph 122: "Because our no-throttling rule addresses instances in which a broadband provider targets particular content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, it does not address a practice of slowing down an end user's connection to the Internet based on a choice made by the end user. For instance, a broadband provider may offer a data plan in which a subscriber receives a set amount of data at one speed tier and any remaining data at a lower tier."

Buried in footnote 13 of the legal brief challenging the 2017 Restoring Internet Freedom Order, Santa Clara County and other pro-regulatory advocates admit they are not attempting to argue that Verizon's usage-based pricing plan with the fire district would have violated the 2015 Title II Order. This makes the net neutrality theater act pretty obvious.

 

After an intermission, the theater act resumed last fall. Chairwoman Rosenworcel invoked the incident in her statement accompanying the FCC's September 2023 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to reclassify broadband Internet access services under Title II. However, the Notice didn't mention it. (The Free State Foundation filed comments and reply comments in response to that Notice, recommending against Title II regulation.)

 

Now the Commission's April 2 draft order invokes the 2018 wildfire incident in seeming support for new agency rules. But the result is underwhelming. Paragraph 452 includes a brief summation of clashing views of public comments: 

Commenters reach differing conclusions regarding the significance of the 2018 Mendocino Complex Fire. Commenters who support reclassification point to the wildfire incident as an example demonstrating the need for the open Internet rules and for the Commission to have greater authority to examine and investigate such incidents, and ultimately, to prevent future harms from occurring. Without such rules, these commenters warn, BIAS providers will engage in conduct that could result in harm to public safety, and that voluntary commitments are insufficient to ensure public safety. Commenters who oppose reclassification contend that the wildfire incident is irrelevant to, and an unpersuasive example used in support of, reclassification and the open Internet rules, because “the data plan at issue was marketed to government users, and therefore not covered by the FCC’s 2015 rules, nor by the definition of BIAS contained in the NPRM” and that Verizon’s actions would not have violated the 2015 Open Internet Order.  In other words, they state that the type of data use plan that Verizon offered and that the Santa Clara fire department purchased did not violate the 2015 Open Internet Order. Opponents also argue that the Santa Clara fire department did not purchase a data plan that was appropriate for their needs.  

The paragraph next offers the Commission’s brief take on the matter: 

In our view the 2018 Mendocino Complex Wildfire incident demonstrates that given the high stakes at issue—the loss of life and property—reliance on the free market alone is insufficient in the area of public safety. 

For all the fuss over the 2018 wildfire incident, at the end of the day the draft order never deems the incident to be a violation of net neutrality principles or the no-throttling rule. Instead, the incident is again being used in a misleading way to kick up dust in support of the proposed regulation. 

 

Public safety is a primary function of government. But responsibility for public safety belongs primarily to agencies like the Department of Homeland Security – and not to the FCC. Congress never provided any clear statement of authority for the Commission to impose public utility regulation on broadband services for public safety purposes. The draft order faces a cliff because the Supreme Court's Major Questions Doctrine requires a clear statement of authority for the agency to undertake such a politically and economically significant action as imposing public utility regulation on broadband Internet access services. The Commission's attempt to rebrand Title II regulation as a public safety matter is an empty and likely doomed attempt to get around the agency's lack of authority problem. 

 

Moreover, there is a huge mismatch between public safety and Title II regulation of commercial mass-market retail broadband Internet access services offered principally to residences and small businesses. Law enforcement agencies and emergency responders rely substantially on enterprise or dedicated networks, including FirstNet. The Title II legacy telephone regulatory framework was designed for rate-regulating common carrier services, and it has almost nothing to do with public safety. There is no reason to think that Title II reclassification of broadband will improve public safety outcomes.