State, Local Governments Weigh In on FCC’s Net Neutrality NPRM
Several states’ attorneys general and utility regulators endorsed FCC action on net neutrality, with most urging the commission to use its authority under Title II of the Communications Act to reclassify broadband as a common carrier service. Three major groups connected with state telecom regulation also endorsed new FCC net neutrality rules, though of the three only the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates (NASUCA) endorsed Title II reclassification as its top preference. Cities of Los Angeles and Philadelphia also weighed in on the FCC’s proposed NPRM. Comments on the net neutrality NPRM were due at the FCC Friday.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman urged the FCC in a joint filing to reclassify broadband as a common carrier service as it crafts new net neutrality rules, but faulted several provisions included in the commission’s NPRM. Reclassification is necessary because it will prove a more substantial legal basis on which the FCC can write new net neutrality rules, with the current classification as an information service being “incompatible” with the commission’s goals, Madigan and Schneiderman said. The rules the FCC is currently proposing, however, are insufficient to protect net neutrality because they include provisions allowing paid prioritization arrangements “that will produce a two-tier system in which some content is given faster and better delivery based on what the content provider is willing to pay,” the attorneys general said. The proposed rules will also fail to discourage or prohibit discrimination, they said (http://bit.ly/1rwqGrR).
Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell endorsed Madigan and Schneiderman’s joint comments, saying in a separate filing that the FCC should correct its mistakes through reclassification of broadband (http://bit.ly/1pwEaPE). The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) said in its filing it continues to urge the FCC to adopt a “modified form of common carriage” for broadband, but said it won’t support “a result in which the FCC preempts the states or reaches a forbearance decision that leaves the states with no viable role.” The FCC should rely on Section 706 to write its new net neutrality rules and seek the cooperation of state governments and the Federal-State Joint Boards, the Pennsylvania PUC said (http://bit.ly/1zYl5wA).
The Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Cable said it supports a “robust and democratic Internet” and wants the FCC to create a stakeholders’ advisory council that could design standards and set best practices regarding Internet traffic discrimination. The department said only the FCC can determine “whether and when” to reclassify ISPs as common carriers, but said reclassification would put the new net neutrality rules “on a more sound legal footing.” The FCC should clarify the circumstances under which it would exercise its Title II authority on broadband if it goes that route, the department said (http://bit.ly/1jS68aF).
NASUCA said it supports Title II reclassification of broadband rather than only using Section 706 as a jurisdictional basis for new net neutrality rules, saying Section 706 would be insufficient grounding (http://bit.ly/UnrK2p). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Verizon v. FCC provides a “clear path” to using Title II, NASUCA said. NARUC, as expected (CD July 21 p7), told the FCC it supports Section 706 as a primary jurisdictional basis for the rules, with Sections I, II and III as backup bases (http://bit.ly/1k8E5UU). The National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA) and the National League of Cities (NLC) said in a joint filing that they continue to support the “preservation of the openness principles” that have made the Internet successful, particularly on a local level, but didn’t comment specifically on FCC use of either Title II or Section 706 (http://bit.ly/TXS17n).
The city of Los Angeles’ government said it supports Title II reclassification, urging the FCC to use Section 706 as a jurisdictional basis only if it can find a way to bar harmful arrangements that would gradually “fundamentally change the nature of open Internet” and to address complaints promptly. The city government suggested the FCC also consider incentivizing ISPs’ adherence to new net neutrality rules by allowing only ISPs that follow the rules to receive full benefits the Telecom Act provides to information services (http://bit.ly/1p39HqM). The city of Philadelphia’s government said it endorses NATOA and NLC’s joint comments (http://bit.ly/1p8oFPc).