“We already have a free and open Internet today, without Title II,” he said at today’s meeting. But while the FCC hasn’t been enforcing net neutrality the past few years, the broadband industry has had to follow similar rules in California and other states.
Carr today called the dire warnings in 2017 a “hoax” and denigrated the plan as imposing “1930s-era government controls to the modern Internet.” He also disputed Rosenworcel’s justifications for bringing back Title II, saying the FCC already has ample authority to handle national security and other matters.
Republican Commissioner Nathan Simington called the proposed rules “unnecessary, dangerously overbroad, and unlikely to survive judicial review.” He said that free-market mechanics have resulted in “de facto net neutrality.”
Democrats back chair
FCC Democrat Geoffrey Starks said the plan is “a framework that puts users in charge of what they do online—and not the companies they pay for a connection. It’s a framework that protects consumers in their use of an essential service—instead of simply trusting ISPs to do the right thing.”
Starks defended the FCC’s authority to act, arguing that Supreme Court decisions show “that Congress very obviously gave us the authority to decide the question of what counts as a telecommunications service.”
Gomez said the proposal “is not about controlling Internet content. Is not about stifling investment, regulating rates, or reducing competition. It is not about controlling the Internet.” Instead, the goal is to prioritize consumers and ensure that the Internet is “open and accessible to all,” she said.
Rosenworcel made it clear that she intends the FCC rules to apply nationwide and preempt state net neutrality laws, saying:
Restoring our open Internet policies will mean that a uniform legal framework applies to the whole country. Because if you hear cries that nothing has happened since the FCC retreated from net neutrality and are asking yourself what is the big deal, think again. Because when the FCC stepped back from having these policies in place, the court said states can step in. So when Washington withdrew, California rode in with its own regime. Other states, too. All in all, nearly a dozen put net neutrality rules in state law, executive orders, or contracting policies. So in effect, we have open Internet policies that providers are abiding by right now—they are just coming from Sacramento and places like it. But when you are dealing with the most essential infrastructure in the digital age, come on—it’s time for a national policy.