Sign up to receive email updates
Doyle Urges FCC to Reclassify Broadband
May 26, 2010 Issues: Telecommunications and the Internet
Washington, DC – May 26, 2010 – Today Congressman Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania) sent a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski regarding his proposal for a “Third Way” to protect consumers and promote universal access and adoption to broadband Internet connectivity.
In the letter, Congressman Doyle urged the FCC to reclassify residential broadband services as Title II – Telecommunications Services. He also expressed his belief that Congress should review and update the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
The full text of the letter follows below:
May 26, 2010
The Honorable Julius Genachowski
Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
Dear Chairman Genachowski,
As you may know, television broadcasters in my district are airing advertisements from a group called “Americans for Prosperity” suggesting that you are about to take over the Internet. As you definitely know, those allegations are untrue. Setting those ads’ fear, uncertainty and doubt aside, I have heard from many constituents and small businesses in my district that are worried of having new and innovative business ideas restricted by a prospective customer’s broadband provider. And at the Federal Communications Commission’s field hearing on July 21, 2008 at Pittsburgh’s Carnegie Mellon University, several witnesses agreed that the Internet – and other communications networks – were only useful if people had access to them and used them. As the Commission’s National Broadband Plan makes clear, more needs to be done to spur the deployment and promote the accessibility of open broadband networks for all consumers, including rural, low-income, and disabled Americans.
I have heard from stakeholders and constituents, from people on all sides of this debate. I have reviewed the Commission’s recent National Broadband Plan, the relevant statutes, the DC Circuit’s recent decision in Comcast v. FCC and your statements about the decision’s fallout. And I have come to the conclusion that if the Federal Communications Commission is to enact those goals, then we are left with only two options that I believe must happen concurrently.
First, the FCC must reclassify residential broadband services as Title II – Telecommunications Services. Instead of taking us back to 1996-era regulations, you proposed that the FCC forbear from enforcing certain requirements under that law, including wholesaling requirements and price cap regulations. I am sure that you did not come to this decision lightly, and I hope that as the Commission decides which regulations to forbear and which to enforce, that you keep consumers in the front of your mind.
Second, Congress must review and possibly update the Telecommunications Act of 1996. As you may know, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce has announced that it will soon begin the process to update the nation’s communications laws. I look forward to our Committee addressing these issues promptly, but after reviewing the legislative history and my own memory, I urge you to take note of the fact that the impetus for sweeping reform first began around 1982-1984 after the breakup of AT&T. Several narrow, discrete pieces of legislation were introduced – with varying levels of success – but it was not until 1994 that a basic framework coalesced. And even then, it took an additional Congress to finally see it enacted. After it was enacted, the fight began immediately to change provisions and rewrite history, weakening the bill in Congress, in the courts and at the Commission. So I look forward to working with you to see to it that the Commission has the proper authority going forward to protect and promote an open internet where consumers have the ability to access the services they want using the devices they want.
Before I came to Congress, I hated having to rent the black rotary phone in our house, and I resented the lack of choices I, and other consumers had. And when I entered Congress, during the heat of the debate over what became the 1996 Telecommunications Act, I voted for the final legislation because I felt it was designed with consumers’ interest in mind. Since then, we’ve seen an explosion of new products and services that rely on an open internet for survival. And consumers in my district want faster speeds from their telecommunications provider because of the new and expanded services that information service providers offer – like video, gaming and more.
I look forward to working with you as the FCC completes its work to reassert its Congressionally-mandated role to protect consumers and promote the public interest.
Sincerely,
Mike Doyle
Member of Congress
The Honorable Julius Genachowski
Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
Dear Chairman Genachowski,
As you may know, television broadcasters in my district are airing advertisements from a group called “Americans for Prosperity” suggesting that you are about to take over the Internet. As you definitely know, those allegations are untrue. Setting those ads’ fear, uncertainty and doubt aside, I have heard from many constituents and small businesses in my district that are worried of having new and innovative business ideas restricted by a prospective customer’s broadband provider. And at the Federal Communications Commission’s field hearing on July 21, 2008 at Pittsburgh’s Carnegie Mellon University, several witnesses agreed that the Internet – and other communications networks – were only useful if people had access to them and used them. As the Commission’s National Broadband Plan makes clear, more needs to be done to spur the deployment and promote the accessibility of open broadband networks for all consumers, including rural, low-income, and disabled Americans.
I have heard from stakeholders and constituents, from people on all sides of this debate. I have reviewed the Commission’s recent National Broadband Plan, the relevant statutes, the DC Circuit’s recent decision in Comcast v. FCC and your statements about the decision’s fallout. And I have come to the conclusion that if the Federal Communications Commission is to enact those goals, then we are left with only two options that I believe must happen concurrently.
First, the FCC must reclassify residential broadband services as Title II – Telecommunications Services. Instead of taking us back to 1996-era regulations, you proposed that the FCC forbear from enforcing certain requirements under that law, including wholesaling requirements and price cap regulations. I am sure that you did not come to this decision lightly, and I hope that as the Commission decides which regulations to forbear and which to enforce, that you keep consumers in the front of your mind.
Second, Congress must review and possibly update the Telecommunications Act of 1996. As you may know, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce has announced that it will soon begin the process to update the nation’s communications laws. I look forward to our Committee addressing these issues promptly, but after reviewing the legislative history and my own memory, I urge you to take note of the fact that the impetus for sweeping reform first began around 1982-1984 after the breakup of AT&T. Several narrow, discrete pieces of legislation were introduced – with varying levels of success – but it was not until 1994 that a basic framework coalesced. And even then, it took an additional Congress to finally see it enacted. After it was enacted, the fight began immediately to change provisions and rewrite history, weakening the bill in Congress, in the courts and at the Commission. So I look forward to working with you to see to it that the Commission has the proper authority going forward to protect and promote an open internet where consumers have the ability to access the services they want using the devices they want.
Before I came to Congress, I hated having to rent the black rotary phone in our house, and I resented the lack of choices I, and other consumers had. And when I entered Congress, during the heat of the debate over what became the 1996 Telecommunications Act, I voted for the final legislation because I felt it was designed with consumers’ interest in mind. Since then, we’ve seen an explosion of new products and services that rely on an open internet for survival. And consumers in my district want faster speeds from their telecommunications provider because of the new and expanded services that information service providers offer – like video, gaming and more.
I look forward to working with you as the FCC completes its work to reassert its Congressionally-mandated role to protect consumers and promote the public interest.
Sincerely,
Mike Doyle
Member of Congress
###
