Restoring Internet Freedom Order

Restoring Internet Freedom Order
Title	Restoring Internet Freedom Order
Agency	Federal Communications Commission
Docket	17-108
Citation	83 FR 7852
Enacted	= January 4, 2018
Introduced	= May 18, 2017
Signed	= December 14, 2017
Signed by	Ajit Pai
Related legislation	Telecommunications Act of 1996
Summary	Reclassified broadband internet access as an information service, repealed net neutrality rules.

Restoring Internet Freedom Order. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order is a significant rulemaking by the Federal Communications Commission that reclassified broadband internet access as an information service under Title I of the Communications Act of 1934. This action, led by Ajit Pai, reversed the 2015 Open Internet Order which had classified broadband as a telecommunications service. The order effectively repealed the core net neutrality regulations established during the Obama administration, including prohibitions on blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization.

Background and context

The debate over net neutrality in the United States intensified following the 2010 Comcast v. FCC court decision, which questioned the Federal Communications Commission's authority. In response, the Obama administration and then-Chairman Tom Wheeler adopted the 2015 Open Internet Order, applying Title II regulations to broadband providers like Verizon and AT&T. The 2016 election of Donald Trump and the subsequent appointment of Ajit Pai as FCC Chairman shifted the agency's philosophy. Pai, a critic of the Title II approach, argued it stifled investment and innovation, setting the stage for a major regulatory reversal. The proceeding was formally launched in May 2017, drawing millions of comments from the public, advocacy groups like Free Press, and corporations such as Google and Comcast.

Provisions and key changes

The order's central provision reclassified broadband internet access from a telecommunications service back to an information service, a classification upheld in the 2005 Supreme Court case National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services. It eliminated the three bright-line rules against blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. The Federal Communications Commission also relinquished its authority to regulate broadband under Title II, shifting primary oversight of internet service provider practices to the Federal Trade Commission for enforcing antitrust and consumer protection laws. The order included enhanced transparency requirements, mandating that providers disclose network management practices.

Support and arguments in favor

Proponents, including Chairman Ajit Pai, major internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon, and groups such as Americans for Prosperity, argued the order restored the light-touch regulatory framework that had fostered the internet's growth. They contended that Title II classification, designed for Ma Bell, was overly burdensome and reduced incentives for broadband infrastructure investment, particularly in rural areas served by companies like CenturyLink. Supporters asserted that returning jurisdiction to the Federal Trade Commission and restoring the Federal Communications Commission's information service classification would promote innovation, increase competition, and ultimately benefit consumers through greater choice and improved services.

Opposition and criticism

The order faced fierce opposition from net neutrality advocates, technology companies including Mozilla and Netflix, and many Democratic lawmakers like Senator Ed Markey. Critics, including former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, argued it gave internet service providers like AT&T and Charter Communications unchecked power to create internet fast lanes, discriminate against content, and harm startups and free speech. Organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge warned it would allow paid prioritization deals that could disadvantage services from smaller companies. The controversial comment process for the proceeding was also criticized after reports of fraudulent submissions.

Legal challenges and implementation

A coalition of state attorneys general, led by New York's Barbara Underwood, and groups including Mozilla filed lawsuits in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. They argued the Federal Communications Commission's action was arbitrary and capricious and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. In October 2019, the court largely upheld the order in Mozilla v. FCC but vacated the provision that preempted state net neutrality laws, opening the door for states like California to enact their own regulations via the California Internet Consumer Protection and Net Neutrality Act of 2018. The order took effect on June 11, 2018.

Impact and legacy

The immediate impact saw internet service providers publicly commit to not blocking or throttling, though the potential for paid prioritization remained. The order created a regulatory patchwork, with states like Washington and California implementing their own rules, leading to ongoing legal battles with the United States Department of Justice. Its legacy cemented the net neutrality debate as a highly partisan issue, with the Save the Internet Act passed by the House in 2019 failing in the Senate. The order's framework remained in place until the Federal Communications Commission under the Biden administration began a new proceeding to potentially restore Title II classification.

Category:United States federal communications regulation Category:Net neutrality in the United States Category:2018 in American law