Despite FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s and Commissioner Mignon Clyburn’s remarks Thursday in approving net neutrality rules, small rural broadband providers are subject to Communications Act Title I, which regulates information services, not to Title II common-carrier regulations as Wheeler and Clyburn claimed, USTelecom Senior Vice President-Law and Policy Jonathan Banks wrote in a blog post Friday. In answering fears the agency would regulate broadband rates after reclassifying broadband under Title II, Clyburn said at the commission meeting that the agency hadn't regulated the rates of 700 rural broadband providers, even though they were subject to “full panoply of Title II regulation.” The “hideous complexities” of the commission’s telecom regulations, Banks said, led the companies to provide Title II wholesale transport services they “’sell’” to themselves, while providing Title I broadband service to customers wanting Internet access, Banks wrote. The Title II wholesale service “is fully and completely regulated by the commission, including rate regulation, down to the penny,” Banks wrote. The “misunderstanding illustrates the lack of clarity and understanding around the debate of Title II being a workable regulatory model for achieving an open and vibrant Internet,” Banks wrote. The rural broadband providers have to contribute to the USF based on their Title II revenue, he said. Clyburn noted that the rural providers make USF contributions, but said, “amazingly, the sky has not fallen and things are OK.” Clyburn’s office did not comment Monday. The Title II regulations Banks referred to don't include the forbearance in the "light touch" net neutrality regulations the commission approved, an agency spokesman said.

The FCC approved rules reclassifying broadband as a common carrier service Thursday by a 3-2 vote before a standing-room only crowd at FCC headquarters. After months of fighting and a failed last stand by FCC Republicans, there were few surprises left by the time commissioners voted. The action now shifts to the courts and to Congress, industry officials said.

The FCC’s expected vote Thursday to reclassify broadband as a Communications Act Title II service has the potential to unintentionally expand its regulatory authority on communications sector cybersecurity, ex-agency officials said in interviews. They conceded it’s unlikely the commission has any plans to exercise that authority in the near future given the strong likelihood of legal challenges to new net neutrality rules. Industry lawyers have said the FCC can claim authority on cybersecurity at least via Title I, and could stake a claim via Title II and Section 706 (see 1406240037). FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has been championing improving cybersecurity risk management within the communications sector since last year via voluntary private sector-led work in the Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council’s (CSRIC) Working Group 4 and the Technological Advisory Council (see 1406130056).

While the FCC is expected to approve proposed net neutrality rules Thursday, discussions were continuing there on some significant details in the order reclassifying broadband. A change apparently sought by Commissioner Mignon Clyburn to remove a specific legal relationship between edge providers and ISPs appears to be out, said a commission official Wednesday. Neither Clyburn nor the agency would comment.

A "likely" FCC argument that broadband should be reclassified because it is a terminating monopoly is “fatally flawed," said USTelecom, expected to be one of those suing if the commission approves its draft net neutrality order next week (see 1502130049). The association's Wednesday letter to the commission, which was given to us by the group, hadn't been posted in docket 14-28.

A CTIA official said the group will likely challenge the FCC net neutrality order, joining a number of other industry officials who also suggested they’re prepared to go to court. “Since it appears the FCC will proceed down the Title II path and fail to adopt mobile-specific rules, the wireless industry will have no choice but to look at the courts and Congress for a remedy,” said Scott Bergmann, CTIA vice president-regulatory affairs, in a Friday statement to us.

Sens. John Thune, R-S.D., and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., published an op-ed in USA Today Wednesday backing their recently reintroduced Internet Tax Freedom Forever Act (see 1502100031). The bill is the Senate version of House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte’s, R-Va., Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act (HR-235) and would ban taxes on Internet access permanently (see 1501090042). “Internet taxes would ... have a harmful effect on commerce, particularly on startups and small businesses, who have to watch their expenses very carefully,” wrote Thune and Wyden. “New Internet access taxes would discourage innovation.” CTIA, NCTA and USTelecom sent a joint letter to House lawmakers Wednesday in support of HR-235.

Consumers have access “to a range of services designed to aid them in managing annoyances and harms” from unwanted phone calls, USTelecom said at the end of the FCC reply period on a petition by the National Association of Attorneys General seeking guidance on robocalls. NAAG had asked the agency for a formal opinion on whether legal or regulatory prohibitions prevent phone carriers from implementing call-blocking technology. Technologies that use “black lists” may not be able to distinguish between legal and illegal calls, USTelecom said in its reply posted Monday in docket 07-135. Consumer outreach and education can play an important role in preventing unwanted calls, the association said. It said the industry is doing “important work” to deal with robocalls, caller ID spoofing and secure phone number authentication, and the commission “should support these various efforts including by identifying areas where additional research and developments may need to be emphasized.”

The Internet Tax Freedom Forever Act was reintroduced Tuesday by Sens. John Thune, R-S.D., and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., a joint news release said. The bill is the Senate version of House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte’s, R-Va., Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act (HR-235) and would ban taxes on Internet access permanently (see 1501090042). Without the bill, “access to information would no longer be tax-free,” Wyden said in the release. ITFFA would “encourage more American innovators and entrepreneurs to use broadband to develop the next big thing,” Thune said. The Senate bill has 39 co-sponsors; HR-235 has 29 House co-sponsors. CTIA and USTelecom applauded the Senate bill in statements Tuesday.

Capitol Hill’s tools of FCC oversight and overhaul are piling up. Just as committee leaders announced investigations into White House influence over net neutrality (see 1502090049) and another lawmaker his intentions to reauthorize the agency formally (see 1502030039), Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., introduced his more ambitious FCC process overhaul bill, which industry lobbyists have told us is likelier to move this Congress. A Senate Republican staffer also said there is interest in bringing the commissioners before the Commerce Committee in the weeks ahead.