F EDERAL COMMUN ICATIONS COMMISSION 
W ASHINGTON 
OFFICE OF 
T H F: CHA I RMAN 
The Honorable Gene Green 
U.S. House of Representatives 
2470 Rayburn House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20515 
Dear Representative Green: 
June 30, 2014 
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to 
preserve a free and Open Internet for all Americans, and the legal basis upon which the 
Commission relies in proposing to reinstate its rules. I share the sense of urgency expressed by 
many on this matter and moved with dispatch to initiate a proceeding to consider new open 
Internet rules to replace those that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the 
Verizon case. As you know, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Notice") adopted by the 
Commission in May 2014 begins that process. Therein, we ask a number of questions about the 
rules we need to adopt, as well as the appropriate legal foundation for such rules. Your letter 
touches on some of the most important issues presented in the Notice , and I will ensure that it is 
included in the record of the proceeding and considered as part of the Commission's review. 
The Commission has struggled for over a decade with how best to protect and promote an 
open Internet. While there has been bipartisan consensus, starting under the Bush 
Administration with Chairman Powell, on the importance of an open Internet to economic 
growth, investment, and innovation, we find ourselves today faced with the worst case scenario: 
we have no Open Internet rules in place to stop broadband providers from limiting Internet 
openness. The status quo is unacceptable. The Commission has already found, and the court has 
agreed, that broadband providers have economic incentives and technological tools to engage in 
behavior that can limit Internet openness and harm consumers and competition. As such, the 
Commission must craft meaningful rules to protect the open Internet, and it must do so promptly. 
I can assure you that I will utilize the best tools available to me to ensure the Commission adopts 
effective and resilient open Internet rules. Unless and until the Commission adopts new rules, 
broadband providers will be free to block, degrade, or otherwise disadvantage innovative 
services on the Internet without threat of sanction by the FCC. 
With respect to the legal foundation of the rules, I believe that the Section 706 framework 
set forth by the court provides us with the tools we need to adopt and implement robust and 
enforceable Open Internet rules. Nevertheless, the Commission also is seriously considering the 
use of Title II of the Communications Act as a basis for legal authority. The Notice explains that 
both Section 706 and Title II are viable solutions to the authority issue, and seeks comment on 
the benefits of each approach, as well as the benefits of one approach over the other, to ensuring 
that the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression. Additionally, the 
Notice seeks comment on other proposals suggesting the Commission could apply both Section 
Page 2-The Honorable Gene Green 
706 and Title II to component parts of broadband Internet access services and asks about the 
extent to which forbearance from certain provisions of the Act or our rules would be justified so 
that the regulatory treatment of broadband providers is appropriately balanced. . 
With respect to the substance of the rules, the proposals and questions in the Notice are 
designed to elicit a record that will give us a foundation to adopt strong, enforceable rules to 
protect the open Internet and prevent broadband providers from harming consumers or 
competition. I am especially sensitive to concerns about paid prioritization arrangements, and 
the potential such arrangements have for creating an Internet that is fast for a few, and slow for 
everyone else. Let me be crystal clear: there must only be one Internet. It must be fast, robust 
and open for everyone. The Notice addresses this issue head-on, even asking if paid 
prioritization should be banned outright. It also proposes clear rules of the road and aggressive 
enforcement to prevent unfair treatment of consumers, edge providers and innovators. Small 
companies and startups must be able to reach consumers with their innovative products and 
services, and they must be protected against harmful conduct by broadband providers. 
The Notice includes a number of proposals designed to empower consumers and small 
businesses who may find themselves subject to harmful behavior by a broadband provider. For 
example, the Court of Appeals did uphold our existing transparency rule, and the Notice 
proposes to strengthen that rule to require that networks disclose any practices that could change 
a consumer's or a content provider's relationship with the network. The Notice proposes the 
creation of an ombudsperson to serve as a watchdog and advocate for start-ups, small businesses 
and consumers. And the Notice seeks comment on how to ensure that all parties, and especially 
small businesses and start-ups, have effective access to the Commission's dispute resolution and 
enforcement processes. 
This Notice is the first step in the process, and I look forward to comments from all 
interested stakeholders, including members of the general public, as we develop a fulsome record 
on the many questions raised in the Notice. To that end, in an effort to maximize public 
participation in this proceeding, we have established an Open Internet email address ­
openinternet@fcc.gov - to ensure that Americans who may not otherwise have the opportunity 
to participate in an FCC proceeding can make their voices heard. In addition, to ensure sufficient 
opportunity for broad public comment, we have provided a lengthy comment and reply period 
through September 10, 2014, that will allow everyone an opportunity to participate. 
Again, I appreciate your deep interest in this matter and look forward to continued 
engagement with you as the proceeding moves forward. 
~~j 
Tom Wheeler 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
WASHINGTON 
O FFICE OF 
THE CHAIRM AN 
The Honorable John Barrow 
U.S. House of Representatives 
2202 Rayburn House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20515 
Dear Congressman Barrow: 
June 30, 2014 
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to 
preserve a free and Open Internet for all Americans, and the legal basis upon which the 
Commission relies in proposing to reinstate its rules. I share the sense of urgency expressed by 
many on this matter and moved with dispatch to initiate a proceeding to consider new open 
Internet rules to replace those that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the 
Verizon case. As you know, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Notice") adopted by the 
Commission in May 2014 begins that process. Therein, we ask a number of questions about the 
rules we need to adopt, as well as the appropriate legal foundation for such rules. Your letter 
touches on some of the most important issues presented in the Notice, and I will ensure that it is 
included in the record of the proceeding and considered as part of the Commission's review. 
The Commission has struggled for over a decade with how best to protect and promote an 
open Internet. While there has been bipartisan consensus, starting under the Bush 
Administration with Chairman Powell, on the importance of an open Internet to economic 
growth, investment, and innovation, we find ourselves today faced with the worst case scenario: 
we have no Open Internet rules in place to stop broadband providers from limiting Internet 
openness. The status quo is unacceptable. The Commission has already found, and the court has 
agreed, that broadband providers have economic incentives and technological tools to engage in 
behavior that can limit Internet openness and harm consumers and competition. As such, the 
Commission must craft meaningful rules to protect the open Internet, and it must do so promptly. 
I can assure you that I will utilize the best tools available to me to ensure the Commission adopts 
effective and resilient open Internet rules. Unless and until the Commission adopts new rules, 
broadband providers will be free to block, degrade, or otherwise disadvantage innovative 
services on the Internet without threat of sanction by the FCC. 
With respect to the legal foundation of the rules, l believe that the Section 706 framework 
set forth by the court provides us with the tools we need to adopt and implement robust and 
enforceable Open Internet rules. Nevertheless, the Commission also is seriously considering the 
use of Title II of the Communications Act as a basis for legal authority. The Notice explains that 
both Section 706 and Title II are viable solutions to the authority issue, and seeks comment on 
the benefits of each approach, as well as the benefits of one approach over the other, to ensuring 
that the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression. Additionally, the 
Notice seeks comment on other proposals suggesting the Commission could apply both Section 
Page 2- The Honorable John Barrow 
706 and Title II to component parts of broadband Internet access services and asks about the 
extent to which forbearance from certain provisions of the Act or our rules would be justified so 
that the regulatory treatment of broadband providers is appropriately balanced. . 
With respect to the substance of the rules, the proposals and questions in the Notice are 
designed to elicit a record that will give us a foundation to adopt strong, enforceable rules to 
protect the open Internet and prevent broadband providers from harming consumers or 
competition. I am especially sensitive to concerns about paid prioritization arrangements, and 
the potential such arrangements have for creating an Internet that is fast for a few, and slow for 
everyone else. Let me be crystal clear: there must only be one Internet. It must be fast, robust 
and open for everyone. The Notice addresses this issue head-on, even asking if paid 
prioritization should be banned outright. It also proposes clear rules of the road and aggressive 
enforcement to prevent unfair treatment of consumers, edge providers and innovators. Small 
companies and startups must be able to reach consumers with their innovative products and 
services, and they must be protected against harmful conduct by broadband providers. 
The Notice includes a number of proposals designed to empower consumers and small 
businesses who may find themselves subject to harmful behavior by a broadband provider. For 
example, the Court of Appeals did uphold our existing transparency rule, and the Notice 
proposes to strengthen that rule to require that networks disclose any practices that could change 
a consumer's or a content provider's relationship with the network. The Notice proposes the 
creation of an ombudsperson to serve as a watchdog and advocate for start-ups, small businesses 
and consumers. And the Notice seeks comment on how to ensure that all parties, and especially 
small businesses and start-ups, have effective access to the Commission's dispute resolution and 
enforcement processes. 
This Notice is the first step in the process, and I look forward to comments from all 
interested stakeholders, including members of the general public, as we develop a fulsome record 
on the many questions raised in the Notice. To that end, in an effort to maximize public 
participation in this proceeding, we have established an Open Internet email address ­
openinternet@fcc.gov - to ensure that Americans who may not otherwise have the opportunity 
to participate in an FCC proceeding can make their voices heard. In addition, to ensure sufficient 
opportunity for broad public comment, we have provided a lengthy comment and reply period 
through September 10, 2014, that will allow everyone an opportunity to participate. 
Again, I appreciate your deep interest in this matter and look forward to continued 
engagement with you as the proceeding moves forward. 
Sincerely, 
-:;;;;-/4 
Tom Wheeler 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
WASHINGTON 
OHICE O F 
THE CHAIR M AN 
The Honorable Sanford Bishop 
U.S. House ofRepresentatives 
2429 Rayburn House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20515 
Dear Congressman Bishop: 
June 30, 2014 
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to 
preserve a free and Open Internet for all Americans, and the legal basis upon which the 
Commission relies in proposing to reinstate its rules. I share the sense of urgency expressed by 
many on this matter and moved with dispatch to initiate a proceeding to consider new open 
Internet rules to replace those that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the 
Verizon case. As you know, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Notice") adopted by the 
Commission in May 2014 begins that process. Therein, we ask a number of questions about the 
rules we need to adopt, as well as the appropriate legal foundation for such rules. Your letter 
touches on some of the most important issues presented in the Notice, and I will ensure that it is 
included in the record of the proceeding and considered as part of the Commission' s review. 
The Commission has struggled for over a decade with how best to protect and promote an 
open Internet. While there has been bipartisan consensus, starting under the Bush 
Administration with Chairman Powell, on the importance of an open Internet to economic 
growth, investment, and innovation, we find ourselves today faced with the worst case scenario: 
we have no Open Internet rules in place to stop broadband providers from limiting Internet 
openness. The status quo is unacceptable. The Commission has already found, and the court has 
agreed, that broadband providers have economic incentives and technological tools to engage in 
behavior that can limit Internet openness and harm consumers and competition. As such, the 
Commission must craft meaningful rules to protect the open Internet, and it must do so promptly. 
I can assure you that I will utilize the best tools available to me to ensure the Commission adopts 
effective and resilient open Internet rules. Unless and until the Commission adopts new rules, 
broadband providers will be free to block, degrade, or otherwise disadvantage innovative 
services on the Internet without threat of sanction by the FCC. 
With respect to the legal foundation of the rules, I believe that the Section 706 framework 
set forth by the court provides us with the tools we need to adopt and implement robust and 
enforceable Open Internet rules. Nevertheless, the Commission also is seriously considering the 
use of Title II of the Communications Act as a basis for legal authority. The Notice explains that 
both Section 706 and Title II are viable solutions to the authority issue, and seeks comment on 
the benefits of each approach, as well as the benefits of one approach over the other, to ensuring 
that the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression. Additionally, the 
Notice seeks comment on other proposals suggesting the Commission could apply both Section 
Page 2- The Honorable Sanford Bishop 
706 and Title II to component parts of broadband Internet access services and asks about the 
extent to which forbearance from certain provisions of the Act or our rules would be justified so 
that the regulatory treatment of broadband providers is appropriately balanced. . 
With respect to the substance of the rules, the proposals and questions in the Notice are 
designed to elicit a record that will give us a foundation to adopt strong, enforceable rules to 
protect the open Internet and prevent broadband providers from harming consumers or 
competition. I am especially sensitive to concerns about paid prioritization arrangements, and 
the potential such arrangements have for creating an Internet that is fast for a few, and slow for 
everyone else. Let me be crystal clear: there must only be one Internet. It must be fast, robust 
and open for everyone. The Notice addresses this issue head-on, even asking if paid 
prioritization should be banned outright. It also proposes clear rules ofthe road and aggressive 
enforcement to prevent unfair treatment of consumers, edge providers and innovators. Small 
companies and startups must be able to reach consumers with their innovative products and 
services, and they must be protected against harmful conduct by broadband providers. 
The Notice includes a number of proposals designed to empower consumers and small 
businesses who may find themselves subject to harmful behavior by a broadband provider. For 
example, the Court of Appeals did uphold our existing transparency rule, and the Notice 
proposes to strengthen that rule to require that networks disclose any practices that could change 
a consumer' s or a content provider's relationship with the network. The Notice proposes the 
creation of an ombudsperson to serve as a watchdog and advocate for start-ups, small businesses 
and consumers. And the Notice seeks comment on how to ensure that all parties, and especially 
small businesses and start-ups, have effective access to the Commission's dispute resolution and 
enforcement processes. 
This Notice is the first step in the process, and I look forward to comments from all 
interested stakeholders, including members of the general public, as we develop a fulsome record 
on the many questions raised in the Nofice. To that end, in an effort to maximize public 
participation in this proceeding, we have established an Open Internet email address ­
openinternet@fcc.gov - to ensure that Americans who may not otherwise have the opportunity 
to participate in an FCC proceeding can make their voices heard. In addition, to ensure sufficient 
opportunity for broad public comment, we have provided a lengthy comment and reply period 
through September 10, 2014, that will allow everyone an opportunity to participate. 
Again, I appreciate your deep interest in this matter and look forward to continued 
engagement with you as the proceeding moves forward. 
Sincerely, 
~#(I 
Tom Wheeler 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
WASHINGTON 
OFFICE OF 
THE CHAIRMAN 
The Honorable Corrine Brown 
U.S. House of Representatives 
2111 Rayburn House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20515 
Dear Congresswoman Brown: 
June 30, 2014 
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to 
preserve a free and Open Internet for all Americans, and the legal basis upon which the 
Commission relies in proposing to reinstate its rules. I share the sense of urgency expressed by 
many on this matter and moved with dispatch to initiate a proceeding to consider new open 
Internet rules to replace those that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the 
Verizon case. As you know, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Notice") adopted by the 
Commission in May 2014 begins that process. Therein, we ask a number of questions about the 
rules we need to adopt, as well as the appropriate legal foundation for such rules. Your letter 
touches on some of the most important issues presented in the Notice, and I will ensure that it is 
included in the record of the proceeding and considered as part of the Commission' s review. 
The Commission has struggled for over a decade with how best to protect and promote an 
open Internet. While there has been bipartisan consensus, starting under the Bush 
Administration with Chairman Powell , on the importance of an open Internet to economic 
growth, investment, and innovation, we find ourselves today faced with the worst case scenario: 
we have no Open Internet rules in place to stop broadband providers from limiting Internet 
openness. The status quo is unacceptable. The Commission has already found, and the court has 
agreed, that broadband providers have economic incentives and technological tools to engage in 
behavior that can limit Internet openness and harm consumers and competition. As such, the 
Commission must craft meaningful rules to protect the open Internet, and it must do so promptly. 
I can assure you that I will utilize the best tools available to me to ensure the Commission adopts 
effective and resilient open Internet rules. Unless and until the Commission adopts new rules, 
broadband providers will be free to block, degrade, or otherwise disadvantage innovative 
services on the Internet without threat of sanction by the FCC. 
With respect to the legal foundation of the rules, I believe that the Section 706 framework 
set forth by the court provides us with the tools we need to adopt and implement robust and 
enforceable Open Internet rules. Nevertheless, the Commission also is seriously considering the 
use ofTitle II of the Communications Act as a basis for legal authority. The Notice explains that 
both Section 706 and Title II are viable solutions to the authority issue, and seeks comment on 
the benefits of each approach, as well as the benefits of one approach over the other, to ensuring 
that the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression. Additionally, the 
Notice seeks comment on other proposals suggesting the Commission could apply both Section 
Page 2-The Honorable Corrine Brown 
706 and Title II to component parts of broadband Internet access services and asks about the 
extent to which forbearance from certain provisions of the Act or our rules would be justified so 
that the regulatory treatment of broadband providers is appropriately balanced .. 
With respect to the substance of the rules, the proposals and questions in the Notice are 
designed to elicit a record that will give us a foundation to adopt strong, enforceable rules to 
protect the open Internet and prevent broadband providers from harming consumers or 
competition. I am especially sensitive to concerns about paid prioritization arrangements, and 
the potential such arrangements have for creating an Internet that is fast for a few, and slow for 
everyone else. Let me be crystal clear: there must only be one Internet. It must be fast, robust 
and open for everyone. The Notice addresses this issue head-on, even asking if paid 
prioritization should be banned outright. It also proposes clear rules of the road and aggressive 
enforcement to prevent unfair treatment of consumers, edge providers and innovators. Small 
companies and startups must be able to reach consumers with their innovative products and 
services, and they must be protected against harmful conduct by broadband providers. 
The Notice includes a number of proposals designed to empower consumers and small 
businesses who may find themselves subject to harmful behavior by a broadband provider. For 
example, the Court of Appeals did uphold our existing transparency rule, and the Notice 
proposes to strengthen that rule to require that networks disclose any practices that could change 
a consumer's or a content provider's relationship with the network. The Notice proposes the 
creation of an ombudsperson to serve as a watchdog and advocate for start-ups, small businesses 
and consumers. And the Notice seeks comment on how to ensure that all parties, and especially 
small businesses and start-ups, have effective access to the Commission's dispute resolution and 
enforcement processes. 
This Notice is the first step in the process, and I look forward to comments from a11 
interested stakeholders, including members of the general public, as we develop a fulsome record 
on the many questions raised in the Notice. To that end, in an effort to maximize public 
participation in this proceeding, we have established an Open Internet email address ­
openinternet@fcc.gov - to ensure that Americans who may not otherwise have the opportunity 
to participate in an FCC proceeding can make their voices heard. In addition, to ensure sufficient 
opportunity for broad public comment, we have provided a lengthy comment and reply period 
through September l 0, 2014, that will allow everyone an opportunity to participate. 
Again, I appreciate your deep interest in this matter and look forward to continued 
engagement with you as the proceeding moves forward. 
Sincerely, 
--:;;;;-4. 
Tom Wheeler 
FEDERA L COMMUNICATIONS COMMI S SION 
WASHIN GTON 
OF"F"ICE OF" 
THE CHAIRMAN 
The Honorable O.K. Butterfield 
U.S. House of Representatives 
2305 Rayburn House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20515 
Dear Congressman Butterfield: 
June 30, 2014 
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to 
preserve a free and Open Internet for all Americans, and the legal basis upon which the 
Commission relies in proposing to reinstate its rules. I share the sense of urgency expressed by 
many on this matter and moved with dispatch to initiate a proceeding to consider new open 
Internet rules to replace those that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the 
Verizon case. As you know, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Notice") adopted by the 
Commission in May 2014 begins that process. Therein, we ask a number of questions about the 
rules we need to adopt, as well as the appropriate legal foundation for such rules. Your Jetter 
touches on some of the most important issues presented in the Notice, and I will ensure that it is 
included in the record of the proceeding and considered as part of the Commission's review. 
The Commission has struggled for over a decade with how best to protect and promote an 
open Internet. While there has been bipartisan consensus, starting under the Bush 
Administration with Chairman Powell, on the importance of an open Internet to economic 
growth, investment, and innovation, we find ourselves today faced with the worst case scenario: 
we have no Open Internet rules in place to stop broadband providers from limiting Internet 
openness. The status quo is unacceptable. The Commission has already found, and the court has 
agreed, that broadband providers have economic incentives and technological tools to engage in 
behavior that can limit Internet openness and harm consumers and competition. As such, the 
Commission must craft meaningful rules to protect the open Internet, and it must do so promptly. 
I can assure you that I will utilize the best tools available to me to ensure the Commission adopts 
effective and resilient open Internet rules. Unless and unti l the Commission adopts new rules, 
broadband providers will be free to block, degrade, or otherwise disadvantage innovative 
services on the Internet without threat of sanction by the FCC. 
With respect to the legal foundation of the rules, I believe that the Section 706 framework 
set forth by the court provides us with the tools we need to adopt and implement robust and 
enforceable Open Internet rules. Nevertheless, the Commission also is seriously considering the 
use of Title II of the Communications Act as a basis for legal authority. The Notice explains that 
both Section 706 and Title II are viable solutions to the authority issue, and seeks comment on 
the benefits of each approach, as well as the benefits of one approach over the other, to ensuring 
that the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression. Additionally, the 
Notice seeks comment on other proposals suggesting the Commission could apply both Section 
Page 2-The Honorable G.K. Butterfield 
706 and Title II to component parts of broadband Internet access services and asks about the 
extent to which forbearance from certain provisions of the Act or our rules would be justified so 
that the regulatory treatment of broadband providers is appropriately balanced .. 
With respect to the substance of the rules, the proposals and questions in the Notice are 
designed to elicit a record that will give us a foundation to adopt strong, enforceable rules to 
protect the open Internet and prevent broadband providers from harming consumers or 
competition. I am especially sensitive to concerns about paid prioritization arrangements, and 
the potential such arrangements have for creating an Internet that is fast for a few, and slow for 
everyone else. Let me be crystal clear: there must only be one Internet. It must be fast, robust 
and open for everyone. The Notice addresses this issue head-on, even asking if paid 
prioritization should be banned outright. It also proposes clear rules of the road and aggressive 
enforcement to prevent unfair treatment of consumers, edge providers and innovators. Small 
companies and startups must be able to reach consumers with their innovative products and 
services, and they must be protected against harmful conduct by broadband providers. 
The Notice includes a number of proposals designed to empower consumers and small 
businesses who may find themselves subject to harmful behavior by a broadband provider. For 
example, the Court of Appeals did uphold our existing transparency rule, and the Notice 
proposes to strengthen that rule to require that networks disclose any practices that could change 
a consumer's or a content provider's relationship with the network. The Notice proposes the 
creation of an ombudsperson to serve as a watchdog and advocate for start-ups, small businesses 
and consumers. And the Notice seeks comment on how to ensure that all parties, and especially 
small businesses and start-ups, have effective access to the Commission's dispute resolution and 
enforcement processes. 
This Notice is the first step in the process, and I look forward to comments from all 
interested stakeholders, including members of the general public, as we develop a fulsome record 
on the many questions raised in the Notice. To that end, in an effort to maximize public 
participation in this proceeding, we have established an Open Internet email address ­
openinternet@fcc.gov - to ensure that Americans who may not otherwise have the opportunity 
to participate in an FCC proceeding can make their voices heard. In addition, to ensure sufficient 
opportunity for broad public comment, we have provided a lengthy comment and reply period 
through September 10, 2014, that will allow everyone an opportunity to participate. 
Again, I appreciate your deep interest in this matter and look forward to continued 
engagement with you as the proceeding moves forward. 
Sincerely, 
Tom Wheeler 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIO N 
WASHINGTON 
OFFICE OF 
THE CHAI RMA N 
The Honorable Joaquin Castro 
U.S. House of Representatives 
212 Cannon House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20515 
Dear Congressman Castro: 
June 30, 2014 
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to 
preserve a free and Open Internet for all Americans, and the legal basis upon which the 
Commission relies in proposing to reinstate its rules. I share the sense of urgency expressed by 
many on this matter and moved with dispatch to initiate a proceeding to consider new open 
Internet rules to replace those that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the 
Verizon case. As you know, the Notice of Proposed Rule making ("Notice") adopted by the 
Commission in May 2014 begins that process. Therein, we ask a number of questions about the 
rules we need to adopt, as well as the appropriate legal foundation for such rules. Your letter 
touches on some of the most important issues presented in the Notice, and 1 will ensure that it is 
included in the record of the proceeding and considered as part of the Commission 's review. 
The Commission has struggled for over a decade with how best to protect and promote an 
open Internet. While there has been bipartisan consensus, starting under the Bush 
Administration with Chairman Powell, on the importance of an open Internet to economic 
growth, investment, and innovation, we find ourselves today faced with the worst case scenario: 
we have no Open Internet rules in place to stop broadband providers from limiting Internet 
openness. The status quo is unacceptable. The Commission has already found, and the court has 
agreed, that broadband providers have economic incentives and technological tools to engage in 
behavior that can limit Internet openness and harm consumers and competition. As such, the 
Commission must craft meaningful rules to protect the open Internet, and it must do so promptly. 
I can assure you that I will utilize the best tools available to me to ensure the Commission adopts 
effective and resilient open Internet rules. Unless and until the Commission adopts new rules, 
broadband providers will be free to block, degrade, or otherwise disadvantage innovative 
services on the Internet without threat of sanction by the FCC. 
With respect to the legal foundation of the rules, I believe that the Section 706 framework 
set forth by the court provides us with the tools we need to adopt and implement robust and 
enforceable Open Internet rules. Nevertheless, the Commission also is seriously considering the 
use of Title II of the Communications Act as a basis for legal authority. The Notice explains that 
both Section 706 and Title II are viable solutions to the authority issue, and seeks comment on 
the benefits of each approach, as well as the benefits of one approach over the other, to ensuring 
that the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression. Additionally, the 
Notice seeks comment on other proposals suggesting the Commission could apply both Section 
Page 2- The Honorable Joaquin Castro 
706 and Title II to component parts of broadband Internet access services and asks about the 
extent to which forbearance from certain provisions of the Act or our rules would be justified so 
that the regulatory treatment of broadband providers is appropriately balanced. . 
With respect to the substance of the rules, the proposals and questions in the Notice are 
designed to elicit a record that will give us a foundation to adopt strong, enforceable rules to 
protect the open Internet and prevent broadband providers from harming consumers or 
competition. I am especially sensitive to concerns about paid prioritization arrangements, and 
the potential such arrangements have for creating an Internet that is fast for a few, and slow for 
everyone else. Let me be crystal clear: there must only be one Internet. It must be fast, robust 
and open for everyone. The Notice addresses this issue head-on, even asking if paid 
prioritization should be banned outright. It also proposes clear rules of the road and aggressive 
enforcement to prevent unfair treatment of consumers, edge providers and innovators. Small 
companies and startups must be able to reach consumers with their innovative products and 
services, and they must be protected against harmful conduct by broadband providers. 
The Notice includes a number of proposals designed to empower consumers and small 
businesses who may find themselves subject to harmful behavior by a broadband provider. For 
example, the Court of Appeals did uphold our existing transparency rule, and the Notice 
proposes to strengthen that rule to require that networks disclose any practices that could change 
a consumer's or a content provider's relationship with the network. The Notice proposes the 
creation of an ombudsperson to serve as a watchdog and advocate for start-ups, small businesses 
and consumers. And the Notice seeks comment on how to ensure that all parties, and especially 
small businesses and start-ups, have effective access to the Commission's dispute resolution and 
enforcement processes. 
This Notice is the first step in the process, and I look forward to comments from all 
interested stakeholders, including members of the general public, as we develop a fulsome record 
on the many questions raised in the Notice. To that end, in an effort to maximize public 
participation in this proceeding, we have established an Open Internet email address ­
openinternet@fcc.gov - to ensure that Americans who may not otherwise have the opportunity 
to participate in an FCC proceeding can make their voices heard. In addition, to ensure sufficient 
opportunity for broad public comment, we have provided a lengthy comment and reply period 
through September 10, 2014, that will allow everyone an opportunity to participate. 
Again, I appreciate your deep interest in this matter and look forward to continued 
engagement with you as the proceeding moves forward. 
Sincerely, 
Tom Wheeler 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMM I S S ION 
WASHINGTON 
OFFICE OF 
THE CHAIR M AN 
The Honorable William Lacy Clay 
U.S. House of Representatives 
2418 Rayburn House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20515 
Dear Congressman Clay: 
June 30, 2014 
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to 
preserve a free and Open Internet for all Americans, and the legal basis upon which the 
Commission relies in proposing to reinstate its rules. I share the sense of urgency expressed by 
many on this matter and moved with dispatch to initiate a proceeding to consider new open 
Internet rules to replace those that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the 
Verizon case. As you know, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Notice" ) adopted by the 
Commission in May 2014 begins that process. Therein, we ask a number of questions about the 
rules we need to adopt, as well as the appropriate legal foundation for such rules. Your letter 
touches on some of the most important issues presented in the Notice, and I will ensure that it is 
included in the record of the proceeding and considered as part of the Commission's review. 
The Commission has struggled for over a decade with how best to protect and promote an 
open Internet. While there has been bipartisan consensus, starting under the Bush 
Administration with Chairman Powell , on the importance of an open Internet to economic 
growth, investment, and innovation, we find ourselves today faced with the worst case scenario: 
we have no Open Internet rules in place to stop broadband providers from limiting Internet 
openness. The status quo is unacceptable. The Commission has already found, and the court has 
agreed, that broadband providers have economic incentives and technological tools to engage in 
behavior that can limit Internet openness and harm consumers and competition. As such, the 
Commission must craft meaningful rules to protect the open Internet, and it must do so promptly. 
I can assure you that I will utilize the best tools available to me to ensure the Commission adopts 
effective and resilient open Internet rules. Unless and until the Commission adopts new rules, 
broadband providers will be free to block, degrade, or otherwise disadvantage innovative 
services on the Internet without threat of sanction by the FCC. 
With respect to the legal foundation of the rules, I believe that the Section 706 framework 
set forth by the court provides us with the tools we need to adopt and implement robust and 
enforceable Open Internet rules. Nevertheless, the Commission also is seriously considering the 
use ofTitle II of the Communications Act as a basis for legal authority. The Notice explains that 
both Section 706 and Title II are viable solutions to the authority issue, and seeks comment on 
the benefits of each approach, as well as the benefits of one approach over the other, to ensuring 
that the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression. Additionally, the 
Notice seeks comment on other proposals suggesting the Commission could apply both Section 
Page 2- The Honorable William Lacy Clay 
706 and Title 11 to component parts of broadband Internet access services and asks about the 
extent to which forbearance from certain provisions of the Act or our rules would be justified so 
that the regulatory treatment of broadband providers is appropriately balanced .. 
With respect to the substance of the rules, the proposals and questions in the Notice are 
designed to elicit a record that will give us a foundation to adopt strong, enforceable rules to 
protect the open Internet and prevent broadband providers from harming consumers or 
competition. I am especially sensitive to concerns about paid prioritization arrangements, and 
the potential such arrangements have for creating an Internet that is fast for a few, and slow for 
everyone else. Let me be crystal clear: there must only be one Internet. It must be fast, robust 
and open for everyone. The Notice addresses this issue head-on, even asking if paid 
prioritization should be banned outright. It also proposes clear rules of the road and aggressive 
enforcement to prevent unfair treatment of consumers, edge providers and innovators. Small 
companies and startups must be able to reach consumers with their innovative products and 
services, and they must be protected against harmful conduct by broadband providers. 
The Notice includes a number of proposals designed to empower consumers and small 
businesses who may find themselves subject to harmful behavior by a broadband provider. For 
example, the Court of Appeals did uphold our existing transparency rule, and the Notice 
proposes to strengthen that rule to require that networks disclose any practices that could change 
a consumer's or a content provider's relationship with the network. The Notice proposes the 
creation of an ombudsperson to serve as a watchdog and advocate for start-ups, small businesses 
and consumers. And the Notice seeks comment on how to ensure that all parties, and especially 
small businesses and start-ups, have effective access to the Commission's dispute resolution and 
enforcement processes. 
This Notice is the first step in the process, and I look forward to comments from all 
interested stakeholders, including members of the general public, as we develop a fulsome record 
on the many questions raised in the Notice. To that end, in an effort to maximize public 
participation in this proceeding, we have established an Open Internet email address ­
openintemet@fcc.gov - to ensure that Americans who may not otherwise have the opportunity 
to participate in an FCC proceeding can make their voices heard. In addition, to ensure sufficient 
opportunity for broad public comment, we have provided a lengthy comment and reply period 
through September 10, 2014, that will allow everyone an opportunity to participate. 
Again, I appreciate your deep interest in this matter and look forward to continued 
engagement with you as the proceeding moves forward. 
Sincerely, 
Tom Wheeler 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
WASHINGTON 
OFF ICE OF 
T H E C H A IR M AN 
The Honorable Henry Cuellar 
U.S. House of Representatives 
2431 Rayburn House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20515 
Dear Congressman Cuellar: 
June 30, 2014 
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to 
preserve a free and Open Internet for all Americans, and the legal basis upon which the 
Commission relies in proposing to reinstate its rules. I share the sense of urgency expressed by 
many on this matter and moved with dispatch to initiate a proceeding to consider new open 
Internet rules to replace those that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the 
Verizon case. As you know, the Notice of Proposed Ru/emaking ("Notice") adopted by the 
Commission in May 2014 begins that process. Therein, we ask a number of questions about the 
rules we need to adopt, as well as the appropriate legal foundation for such rules. Your letter 
touches on some of the most important issues presented in the Notice, and I will ensure that it is 
included in the record of the proceeding and considered as part of the Commission's review. 
The Commission has struggled for over a decade with how best to protect and promote an 
open Internet. While there has been bipartisan consensus, starting under the Bush 
Administration with Chairman Powell, on the importance of an open Internet to economic 
growth, investment, and innovation, we find ourselves today faced with the worst case scenario: 
we have no Open Internet rules in place to stop broadband providers from limiting Internet 
openness. The status quo is unacceptable. The Commission has already found, and the court has 
agreed, that broadband providers have economic incentives and technological tools to engage in 
behavior that can limit Internet openness and harm consumers and competition. As such, the 
Commission must craft meaningful rules to protect the open Internet, and it must do so promptly. 
I can assure you that I will utilize the best tools available to me to ensure the Commission adopts 
effective and resilient open Internet rules. Unless and until the Commission adopts new rules, 
broadband providers will be free to block, degrade, or otherwise disadvantage innovative 
services on the Internet without threat of sanction by the FCC. 
With respect to the legal foundation of the rules, I believe that the Section 706 framework 
set forth by the court provides us with the tools we need to adopt and implement robust and 
enforceable Open Internet rules. Nevertheless, the Commission also is seriously considering the 
use of Title II of the Communications Act as a basis for legal authority. The Notice explains that 
both Section 706 and Title II are viable solutions to the authority issue, and seeks comment on 
the benefits of each approach, as well as the benefits of one approach over the other, to ensuring 
that the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression. Additionally, the 
Notice seeks comment on other proposals suggesting the Commission could apply both Section 
Page 2- The Honorable Henry Cuellar 
706 and Title II to component parts of broadband Internet access services and asks about the 
extent to which forbearance from certain provisions of the Act or our rules would be justified so 
that the regulatory treatment of broadband providers is appropriately balanced. . 
With respect to the substance of the rules, the proposals and questions in the Notice are 
designed to elicit a record that will give us a foundation to adopt strong, enforceable rules to 
protect the open Internet and prevent broadband providers from harming consumers or 
competition. I am especially sensitive to concerns about paid prioritization arrangements, and 
the potential such arrangements have for creating an Internet that is fast for a few, and slow for 
everyone else. Let me be crystal clear: there must only be one Internet. It must be fast, robust 
and open for everyone. The Notice addresses this issue head-on, even asking if paid 
prioritization should be banned outright. It also proposes clear rules of the road and aggressive 
enforcement to prevent unfair treatment of consumers, edge providers and innovators. Small 
companies and startups must be able to reach consumers with their innovative products and 
services, and they must be protected against harmful conduct by broadband providers. 
The Notice includes a number of proposals designed to empower consumers and small 
businesses who may find themselves subject to harmful behavior by a broadband provider. For 
example, the Court of Appeals did uphold our existing transparency rule, and the Notice 
proposes to strengthen that rule to require that networks disclose any practices that could change 
a consumer's or a content provider's relationship with the network. The Notice proposes the 
creation of an ombudsperson to serve as a watchdog and advocate for start-ups, small businesses 
and consumers. And the Notice seeks comment on how to ensure that all parties, and especially 
small businesses and start-ups, have effective access to the Commission's dispute resolution and 
enforcement processes. 
This Notice is the first step in the process, and I look forward to comments from all 
interested stakeholders, including members of the general public, as we develop a fulsome record 
on the many questions raised in the Notice. To that end, in an effort to maximize public 
participation in this proceeding, we have established an Open Internet email address ­
openintemet@fcc.gov - to ensure that Americans who may not otherwise have the opportunity 
to participate in an FCC proceeding can make their voices heard. In addition, to ensure sufficient 
opportunity for broad public comment, we have provided a lengthy comment and reply period 
through September 10, 2014, that will allow everyone an opportunity to participate. 
Again, I appreciate your deep interest in this matter and look forward to continued 
engagement with you as the proceeding moves forward. 
Sincerely, 
~~ 
Tom Wheeler 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
WASHINGTON 
Of'f'ICE Of' 
THE CHAIRMAN 
The Honorable Alcee Hastings 
U.S. House of Representatives 
2353 Rayburn House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20515 
Dear Congressman Hastings: 
June 30, 2014 
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to 
preserve a free and Open Internet for all Americans, and the legal basis upon which the 
Commission relies in proposing to reinstate its rules. I share the sense of urgency expressed by 
many on this matter and moved with dispatch to initiate a proceeding to consider new open 
Internet rules to replace those that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the 
Verizon case. As you know, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Notice") adopted by the 
Commission in May 20 14 begins that process. Therein, we ask a number of questions about the 
rules we need to adopt, as well as the appropriate legal foundation for such rules. Your letter 
touches on some of the most important issues presented in the Notice, and I will ensure that it is 
included in the record of the proceeding and considered as part of the Commission's review. 
The Commission has struggled for over a decade with how best to protect and promote an 
open Internet. While there has been bipartisan consensus, starting under the Bush 
Administration with Chairman Powell, on the importance of an open Internet to economic 
growth, investment, and innovation, we find ourselves today faced with the worst case scenario: 
we have no Open Internet rules in place to stop broadband providers from limiting Internet 
openness. The status quo is unacceptable. The Commission has already found, and the court has 
agreed, that broadband providers have economic incentives and technological tools to engage in 
behavior that can limit Internet openness and harm consumers and competition. As such, the 
Commission must craft meaningful rules to protect the open Internet, and it must do so promptly. 
I can assure you that I will utilize the best tools available to me to ensure the Commission adopts 
effective and resilient open Internet rules. Unless and until the Commission adopts new rules, 
broadband providers will be free to block, degrade, or otherwise disadvantage innovative 
services on the Internet without threat of sanction by the FCC. 
With respect to the legal foundation of the rules, I believe that the Section 706 framework 
set forth by the court provides us with the tools we need to adopt and implement robust and 
enforceable Open Internet rules. Nevertheless, the Commission also is seriously considering the 
use ofTitle II of the Communications Act as a basis for legal authority. The Notice explains that 
both Section 706 and Title II are viable solutions to the authority issue, and seeks comment on 
the benefits of each approach, as well as the benefits of one approach over the other, to ensuring 
that the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression. Additionally, the 
Notice seeks comment on other proposals suggesting the Commission could apply both Section 
Page 2-The Honorable Alcee Hastings 
706 and Title II to component parts of broadband Internet access services and asks about the 
extent to which forbearance from certain provisions of the Act or our rules would be justified so 
that the regulatory treatment of broadband providers is appropriately balanced. . 
With respect to the substance of the rules, the proposals and questions in the Notice are 
designed to elicit a record that will give us a foundation to adopt strong, enforceable rules to 
protect the open Internet and prevent broadband providers from harming consumers or 
competition. I am especially sensitive to concerns about paid prioritization arrangements, and 
the potential such arrangements have for creating an Internet that is fast for a few, and slow for 
everyone else. Let me be crystal clear: there must only be one Internet. It must be fast, robust 
and open for everyone. The Notice addresses this issue head-on, even asking if paid 
prioritization should be banned outright. It also proposes clear rules of the road and aggressive 
enforcement to prevent unfair treatment of consumers, edge providers and innovators. Small 
companies and startups must be able to reach consumers with their innovative products and 
services, and they must be protected against harmful conduct by broadband providers. 
The Notice includes a number of proposals designed to empower consumers and small 
businesses who may find themselves subject to harmful behavior by a broadband provider. For 
example, the Court of Appeals did uphold our existing transparency rule, and the Notice 
proposes to strengthen that rule to require that networks disclose any practices that could change 
a consumer's or a content provider's relationship with the network. The Notice proposes the 
creation of an ombudsperson to serve as a watchdog and advocate for start-ups, small businesses 
and consumers. And the Notice seeks comment on how to ensure that all parties, and especially 
small businesses and start-ups, have effective access to the Commission's dispute resolution and 
enforcement processes. 
This Notice is the first step in the process, and I look forward to comments from all 
interested stakeholders, including members of the general public, as we develop a fulsome record 
on the many questions raised in the Notice. To that end, in an effort to maximize public 
participation in this proceeding, we have established an Open Internet email address ­
openintemet@fcc.gov- to ensure that Americans who may not otherwise have the opportunity 
to participate in an FCC proceeding can make their voices heard. In addition, to ensure sufficient 
opportunity for broad public comment, we have provided a lengthy comment and reply period 
through September 10, 2014, that will allow everyone an opportunity to participate. 
Again, I appreciate your deep interest in this matter and look forward to continued 
engagement with you as the proceeding moves forward. 
Sincerely, 
-;;;;:;-~ 
Tom Wheeler 
FEDERAL COM M UN !CATIONS COMMISSION 
WASHINGTON 
OFFICE O F 
T H E C H AI RMAN 
The Honorable Gregory Meeks 
U.S. House of Representatives 
2234 Rayburn House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20515 
Dear Congressman Meeks: 
June 30, 2014 
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to 
preserve a free and Open Internet fo r all Americans, and the legal basis upon which the 
Commission relies in proposing to reinstate its rules. I share the sense of urgency expressed by 
many on this matter and moved with dispatch to initiate a proceeding to consider new open 
Internet rules to replace those that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the 
Verizon case. As you know, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Notice") adopted by the 
Commission in May 2014 begins that process. Therein, we ask a number of questions about the 
rules we need to adopt, as well as the appropriate legal foundation for such rules. Your letter 
touches on some of the most important issues presented in the Notice, and I will ensure that it is 
included in the record of the proceeding and considered as part ofthe Commission's review. 
The Commission has struggled for over a decade with how best to protect and promote an 
open Internet. While there has been bipartisan consensus, starting under the Bush 
Administration with Chairman Powell, on the importance of an open Internet to economic 
growth, investment, and innovation, we find ourselves today faced with the worst case scenario: 
we have no Open Internet rules in place to stop broadband providers from limiting Internet 
openness. The status quo is unacceptable. The Commission has already found, and the court has 
agreed, that broadband providers have economic incentives and technological tools to engage in 
behavior that can limit Internet openness and harm consumers and competition. As such, the 
Commission must craft meaningful rules to protect the open Internet, and it must do so promptly. 
I can assure you that I will utilize the best tools available to me to ensure the Commission adopts 
effective and resilient open Internet rules. Unless and until the Commission adopts new rules, 
broadband providers will be free to block, degrade, or otherwise disadvantage innovative 
services on the Internet without threat of sanction by the FCC. 
With respect to the legal foundation of the rules, I believe that the Section 706 framework 
set forth by the court provides us with the tools we need to adopt and implement robust and 
enforceable Open Internet rules. Nevertheless, the Commission also is seriously considering the 
use of Title II of the Communications Act as a basis for legal authority. The Notice explains that 
both Section 706 and Title II are viable solutions to the authority issue, and seeks comment on 
the benefits of each approach, as well as the benefits of one approach over the other, to ensuring 
that the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression. Additionally, the 
Notice seeks comment on other proposals suggesting the Commission could apply both Section 
Page 2- The Honorable Gregory Meeks 
706 and Title II to component parts of broadband Internet access services and asks about the 
extent to which forbearance from certain provisions of the Act or our rules would be justified so 
that the regulatory treatment of broadband providers is appropriately balanced. . 
With respect to the substance of the rules, the proposals and questions in the Notice are 
designed to elicit a record that will give us a foundation to adopt strong, enforceable rules to 
protect the open Internet and prevent broadband providers from harming consumers or 
competition. I am especially sensitive to concerns about paid prioritization arrangements, and 
the potential such arrangements have for creating an Internet that is fast for a few, and slow for 
everyone else. Let me be crystal clear: there must only be one Internet. It must be fast, robust 
and open for everyone. The Notice addresses this issue head-on, even asking if paid 
prioritization should be banned outright. It also proposes clear rules of the road and aggressive 
enforcement to prevent unfair treatment of consumers, edge providers and innovators. Small 
companies and startups must be able to reach consumers with their innovative products and 
services, and they must be protected against harmful conduct by broadband providers. 
The Notice includes a number of proposals designed to empower consumers and small 
businesses who may find themselves subject to harmful behavior by a broadband provider. For 
example, the Court of Appeals did uphold our existing transparency rule, and the Notice 
proposes to strengthen that rule to require that networks disclose any practices that could change 
a consumer' s or a content provider' s relationship with the network. The Notice proposes the 
creation of an ombudsperson to serve as a watchdog and advocate for start-ups, small businesses 
and consumers. And the Notice seeks comment on how to ensure that all parties, and especially 
small businesses and start-ups, have effective access to the Commission's dispute resolution and 
enforcement processes. 
This Notice is the first step in the process, and I look forward to comments from all 
interested stakeholders, including members ofthe general public, as we develop a fulsome record 
on the many questions raised in the Notice. To that end, in an effort to maximize public 
participation in this proceeding, we have established an Open Internet email address ­
openinternet@fcc.gov - to ensure that Americans who may not otherwise have the opportunity 
to participate in an FCC proceeding can make their voices heard. In addition, to ensure sufficient 
opportunity for broad public comment, we have provided a lengthy comment and reply period 
through September I 0, 2014, that will allow everyone an opportunity to participate. 
Again, I appreciate your deep interest in this matter and look forward to continued 
engagement with you as the proceeding moves forward. 
Sincerely, 
--:;;;;;-~ 
Tom Wheeler 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
WASHINGTON 
OFFICE OF 
THE CHAIRM AN 
The Honorable Bill Owens 
U.S. House of Representatives 
405 Cannon House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20515 
Dear Congressman Owens: 
June 30, 2014 
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to 
preserve a free and Open Internet for all Americans, and the legal basis upon which the 
Commission relies in proposing to reinstate its rules. I share the sense of urgency expressed by 
many on this matter and moved with dispatch to initiate a proceeding to consider new open 
Internet rules to replace those that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the 
Verizon case. As you know, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Notice") adopted by the 
Commission in May 2014 begins that process. Therein, we ask a number of questions about the 
rules we need to adopt, as well as the appropriate legal foundation for such rules. Your letter 
touches on some of the most important issues presented in the Notice, and I will ensure that it is 
included in the record of the proceeding and considered as part of the Commission's review. 
The Commission has struggled for over a decade with how best to protect and promote an 
open Internet. While there has been bipartisan consensus, starting under the Bush 
Administration with Chairman Powell, on the importance of an open Internet to economic 
growth, investment, and innovation, we find ourselves today faced with the worst case scenario: 
we have no Open Internet rules in place to stop broadband providers from limiting Internet 
openness. The status quo is unacceptable. The Commission has already found, and the court has 
agreed, that broadband providers have economic incentives and technological tools to engage in 
behavior that can limit Internet openness and harm consumers and competition. As such, the 
Commission must craft meaningful rules to protect the open Internet, and it must do so promptly. 
1 can assure you that I will utilize the best tools available to me to ensure the Commission adopts 
effective and resilient open Internet rules. Unless and until the Commission adopts new rules, 
broadband providers will be free to block, degrade, or otherwise disadvantage innovative 
services on the Internet without threat of sanction by the FCC. 
With respect to the legal foundation of the rules, I believe that the Section 706 framework 
set forth by the court provides us with the tools we need to adopt and implement robust and 
enforceable Open Internet rules. Nevertheless, the Commission also is seriously considering the 
use ofTitle II of the Communications Act as a basis for legal authority. The Notice explains that 
both Section 706 and Title II are viable solutions to the authority issue, and seeks comment on 
the benefits of each approach, as well as the benefits of one approach over the other, to ensuring 
that the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression. Additionally, the 
Notice seeks comment on other proposals suggesting the Commission could apply both Section 
Page 2- The Honorable Bill Owens 
706 and Title II to component parts of broadband Internet access services and asks about the 
extent to which forbearance from certain provisions of the Act or our rules would be justified so 
that the regulatory treatment of broadband providers is appropriately balanced. . 
With respect to the substance of the rules, the proposals and questions in the Notice are 
designed to elicit a record that will give us a foundation to adopt strong, enforceable rules to 
protect the open Internet and prevent broadband providers from harming consumers or 
competition. I am especially sensitive to concerns about paid prioritization arrangements, and 
the potential such arrangements have for creating an Internet that is fast for a few, and slow for 
everyone else. Let me be crystal clear: there must only be one Internet. It must be fast, robust 
and open for everyone. The Notice addresses this issue head-on, even asking if paid 
prioritization should be banned outright. It also proposes clear rules of the road and aggressive 
enforcement to prevent unfair treatment of consumers, edge providers and innovators. Small 
companies and startups must be able to reach consumers with their innovative products and 
services, and they must be protected against harmful conduct by broadband providers. 
The Notice includes a number of proposals designed to empower consumers and small 
businesses who may find themselves subject to harmful behavior by a broadband provider. For 
example, the Court of Appeals did uphold our existing transparency rule, and the Notice 
proposes to strengthen that rule to require that networks disclose any practices that could change 
a consumer's or a content provider's relationship with the network. The Notice proposes the 
creation of an ombudsperson to serve as a watchdog and advocate for start-ups, small businesses 
and consumers. And the Notice seeks comment on how to ensure that all parties, and especially 
small businesses and start-ups, have effective access to the Commission's dispute resolution and 
enforcement processes. 
This Notice is the first step in the process, and I look forward to comments from all 
interested stakeholders, including members of the general public, as we develop a fulsome record 
on the many questions raised in the Notice. To that end, in an effort to maximize public 
participation in this proceeding, we have established an Open Internet email address­
openinternet@fcc.gov - to ensure that Americans who may not otherwise have the opportunity 
to participate in an FCC proceeding can make their voices heard. In addition, to ensure sufficient 
opportunity for broad public comment, we have provided a lengthy comment and reply period 
through September 10,2014, that will allow everyone an opportunity to participate. 
Again, I appreciate your deep interest in this matter and look forward to continued 
engagement with you as the proceeding moves forward. 
Sincerely, 
~~ 
Tom Wheeler 
F EDERAL COMM U N ICATIONS C OMMISSION 
W ASH I NGTON 
OFFI C E OF 
THE C H AI RM AN 
The Honorable Scott Peters 
U.S. House of Representatives 
2410 Rayburn House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20515 
Dear Congressman Peters: 
June 30, 2014 
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to 
preserve a free and Open Internet for all Americans, and the legal basis upon which the 
Commission relies in proposing to reinstate its rules. I share the sense of urgency expressed by 
many on this matter and moved with dispatch to initiate a proceeding to consider new open 
Internet rules to replace those that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the 
Verizon case. As you know, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Notice") adopted by the 
Commission in May 2014 begins that process. Therein, we ask a number of questions about the 
rules we need to adopt, as well as the appropriate legal foundation for such rules. Your letter 
touches on some of the most important issues presented in the Notice, and I will ensure that it is 
included in the record of the proceeding and considered as part of the Commission's review. 
The Commission has struggled for over a decade with how best to protect and promote an 
open Internet. While there has been bipartisan consensus, starting under the Bush 
Administration with Chairman Powell, on the importance of an open Internet to economic 
growth, investment, and innovation, we find ourselves today faced with the worst case scenario: 
we have no Open Internet rules in place to stop broadband providers from limiting Internet 
openness. The status quo is unacceptable. The Commission has already found, and the court has 
agreed, that broadband providers have economic incentives and technological tools to engage in 
behavior that can limit Internet openness and harm consumers and competition. As such, the 
Commission must craft meaningful rules to protect the open Internet, and it must do so promptly. 
I can assure you that I will utilize the best tools available to me to ensure the Commission adopts 
effective and resilient open Internet rules. Unless and until the Commission adopts new rules, 
broadband providers will be free to block, degrade, or otherwise disadvantage innovative 
services on the Internet without threat of sanction by the FCC. 
With respect to the legal foundation of the rules, I believe that the Section 706 framework 
set forth by the court provides us with the tools we need to adopt and implement robust and 
enforceable Open Internet rules. Nevertheless, the Commission also is seriously considering the 
use of Title II of the Communications Act as a basis for legal authority. The Notice explains that 
both Section 706 and Title II are viable solutions to the authority issue, and seeks comment on 
the benefits of each approach, as well as the benefits of one approach over the other, to ensuring 
that the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression. Additionally, the 
Notice seeks comment on other proposals suggesting the Commission could apply both Section 
Page 2- The Honorable Scott Peters 
706 and Title II to component parts of broadband Internet access services and asks about the 
extent to which forbearance from certain provisions of the Act or our rules would be justified so 
that the regulatory treatment of broadband providers is appropriately balanced. . 
With respect to the substance of the rules, the proposals and questions in the Notice are 
designed to elicit a record that will give us a foundation to adopt strong, enforceable rules to 
protect the open Internet and prevent broadband providers from harming consumers or 
competition. I am especially sensitive to concerns about paid prioritization arrangements, and 
the potential such arrangements have for creating an Internet that is fast for a few, and slow for 
everyone else. Let me be crystal clear: there must only be one Internet. It must be fast, robust 
and open for everyone. The Notice addresses this issue head-on, even asking if paid 
prioritization should be banned outright. It also proposes clear rules of the road and aggressive 
enforcement to prevent unfair treatment of consumers, edge providers and innovators. Small 
companies and startups must be able to reach consumers with their innovative products and 
services, and they must be protected against harmful conduct by broadband providers. 
The Notice includes a number of proposals designed to empower consumers and small 
businesses who may find themselves subject to harmful behavior by a broadband provider. For 
example, the Court of Appeals did uphold our existing transparency rule, and the Notice 
proposes to strengthen that rule to require that networks disclose any practices that could change 
a consumer's or a content provider's relationship with the network. The Notice proposes the 
creation of an ombudsperson to serve as a watchdog and advocate for start-ups, small businesses 
and consumers. And the Notice seeks comment on how to ensure that all parties, and especially 
small businesses and start-ups, have effective access to the Commission's dispute resolution and 
enforcement processes. 
This Notice is the first step in the process, and I look forward to comments from all 
interested stakeholders, including members of the general public, as we develop a fulsome record 
on the many questions raised in the Notice. To that end, in an effort to maximize public 
participation in this proceeding, we have established an Open Internet email address ­
openinternet@fcc.gov - to ensure that Americans who may not otherwise have the opportunity 
to participate in an FCC proceeding can make their voices heard. In addition, to ensure sufficient 
opportunity for broad public comment, we have provided a lengthy comment and reply period 
through September 10, 2014, that will allow everyone an opportunity to participate. 
Again, I appreciate your deep interest in this matter and look forward to continued 
engagement with you as the proceeding moves forward. 
Sincerely, 
-;;;;~ 
Tom Wheeler 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
WASHINGTON 
OFFICE O F 
THE CHAI R M AN 
The Honorable Nick Rahall 
U.S. House of Representatives 
2307 Rayburn House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20515 
Dear Congressman Rahall: 
June 30, 2014 
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to 
preserve a free and Open Internet for all Americans, and the legal basis upon which the 
Commission relies in proposing to reinstate its rules. I share the sense of urgency expressed by 
many on this matter and moved with dispatch to initiate a proceeding to consider new open 
Internet rules to replace those that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the 
Verizon case. As you know, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Notice") adopted by the 
Commission in May 2014 begins that process. Therein, we ask a number of questions about the 
rules we need to adopt, as well as the appropriate legal foundation for such rules. Your letter 
touches on some of the most important issues presented in the Notice, and I will ensure that it is 
included in the record of the proceeding and considered as part of the Commission's review. 
The Commission has struggled for over a decade with how best to protect and promote an 
open Internet. While there has been bipartisan consensus, starting under the Bush 
Administration with Chairman Powell, on the importance of an open Internet to economic 
growth, investment, and innovation, we find ourselves today faced with the worst case scenario: 
we have no Open Internet rules in place to stop broadband providers from limiting Internet 
openness. The status quo is unacceptable. The Commission has already found, and the court has 
agreed, that broadband providers have economic incentives and technological tools to engage in 
behavior that can limit Internet openness and harm consumers and competition. As such, the 
Commission must craft meaningful rules to protect the open Internet, and it must do so promptly. 
I can assure you that I will utilize the best tools available to me to ensure the Commission adopts 
effective and resilient open Internet rules. Unless and until the Commission adopts new rules, 
broadband providers will be free to block, degrade, or otherwise disadvantage innovative 
services on the Internet without threat of sanction by the FCC. 
With respect to the legal foundation ofthe rules, I believe that the Section 706 framework 
set forth by the court provides us with the tools we need to adopt and implement robust and 
enforceable Open Internet rules. Nevertheless, the Commission also is seriously considering the 
use of Title II of the Communications Act as a basis for legal authority. The Notice explains that 
both Section 706 and Title II are viable solutions to the authority issue, and seeks comment on 
the benefits of each approach, as well as the benefits of one approach over the other, to ensuring 
that the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression. Additionally, the 
Notice seeks comment on other proposals suggesting the Commission could apply both Section 
Page 2-The Honorable Nick Rahall 
706 and Title II to component parts of broadband Internet access services and asks about the 
extent to which forbearance from certain provisions of the Act or our rules would be justified so 
that the regulatory treatment of broadband providers is appropriately balanced. . 
With respect to the substance of the rules, the proposals and questions in the Notice are 
designed to elicit a record that will give us a foundation to adopt strong, enforceable rules to 
protect the open Internet and prevent broadband providers from harming consumers or 
competition. I am especially sensitive to concerns about paid prioritization arrangements, and 
the potential such arrangements have for creating an Internet that is fast for a few, and slow for 
everyone else. Let me be crystal clear: there must only be one Internet. It must be fast, robust 
and open for everyone. The Notice addresses this issue head-on, even asking if paid 
prioritization should be banned outright. It also proposes clear rules of the road and aggressive 
enforcement to prevent unfair treatment of consumers, edge providers and innovators. Small 
companies and startups must be able to reach consumers with their innovative products and 
services, and they must be protected against harmful conduct by broadband providers. 
The Notice includes a number of proposals designed to empower consumers and small 
businesses who may find themselves subject to harmful behavior by a broadband provider. For 
example, the Court of Appeals did uphold our existing transparency rule, and the Notice 
proposes to strengthen that rule to require that networks disclose any practices that could change 
a consumer's or a content provider's relationship with the network. The Notice proposes the 
creation of an ombudsperson to serve as a watchdog and advocate for start-ups, small businesses 
and consumers. And the Notice seeks comment on how to ensure that all parties, and especially 
small businesses and start-ups, have effective access to the Commission's dispute resolution and 
enforcement processes. 
This Notice is the first step in the process, and I look forward to comments from all 
interested stakeholders, including members of the general public, as we develop a fulsome record 
on the many questions raised in the Notice. To that end, in an effort to maximize public 
participation in this proceeding, we have established an Open Internet email address ­
openinternet@fcc.gov - to ensure that Americans who may not otherwise have the opportunity 
to participate in an FCC proceeding can make their voices heard. In addition, to ensure sufficient 
opportunity for broad public comment, we have provided a lengthy comment and reply period 
through September 10, 2014, that will allow everyone an opportunity to participate. 
Again, I appreciate your deep interest in this matter and look forward to continued 
engagement with you as the proceeding moves forward. 
Sincerely, 
--;;:;-4 
Tom Wheeler 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
WASHINGTON 
OFFICE OF 
THE CHAIRMAN 
The Honorable Bobby Rush 
U.S. House of Representatives 
2268 Rayburn House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20515 
Dear Congressman Rush: 
June 30, 2014 
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to 
preserve a free and Open Internet for all Americans, and the legal basis upon which the 
Commission relies in proposing to reinstate its rules. I share the sense of urgency expressed by 
many on this matter and moved with dispatch to initiate a proceeding to consider new open 
Internet rules to replace those that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the 
Verizon case. As you know, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Notice") adopted by the 
Commission in May 2014 begins that process. Therein, we ask a number of questions about the 
rules we need to adopt, as well as the appropriate legal foundation for such rules. Your letter 
touches on some of the most important issues presented in the Notice, and I will ensure that it is 
included in the record of the proceeding and considered as part of the Commission's review. 
The Commission has struggled for over a decade with how best to protect and promote an 
open Internet. While there has been bipartisan consensus, starting under the Bush 
Administration with Chairman Powell, on the importance of an open Internet to economic 
growth, investment, and innovation, we find ourselves today faced with the worst case scenario: 
we have no Open Internet rules in place to stop broadband providers from limiting Internet 
openness. The status quo is unacceptable. The Commission has already found, and the court has 
agreed, that broadband providers have economic incentives and technological tools to engage in 
behavior that can limit Internet openness and harm consumers and competition. As such, the 
Commission must craft meaningful rules to protect the open Internet, and it must do so promptly. 
I can assure you that I will utilize the best tools available to me to ensure the Commission adopts 
effective and resilient open Internet rules. Unless and until the Commission adopts new rules, 
broadband providers will be free to block, degrade, or otherwise disadvantage innovative 
services on the Internet without threat of sanction by the FCC. 
With respect to the legal foundation of the rules, I believe that the Section 706 framework 
set forth by the court provides us with the tools we need to adopt and implement robust and 
enforceable Open Internet rules. Nevertheless, the Commission also is seriously considering the 
use of Title II of the Communications Act as a basis for legal authority. The Notice explains that 
both Section 706 and Title II are viable solutions to the authority issue, and seeks comment on 
the benefits of each approach, as well as the benefits of one approach over the other, to ensuring 
that the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression. Additionally, the 
Notice seeks comment on other proposals suggesting the Commission could apply both Section 
Page 2- The Honorable Bobby Rush 
706 and Title II to component parts of broadband Internet access services and asks about the 
extent to which forbearance from certain provisions of the Act or our rules would be justified so 
that the regulatory treatment of broadband providers is appropriately balanced. . 
With respect to the substance of the rules, the proposals and questions in the Notice are 
designed to elicit a record that will give us a foundation to adopt strong, enforceable rules to 
protect the open Internet and prevent broadband providers from harming consumers or 
competition. I am especially sensitive to concerns about paid prioritization arrangements, and 
the potential such arrangements have for creating an Internet that is fast for a few, and slow for 
everyone else. Let me be crystal clear: there must only be one Internet. It must be fast, robust 
and open for everyone. The Notice addresses this issue head-on, even asking if paid 
prioritization should be banned outright. It also proposes clear rules of the road and aggressive 
enforcement to prevent unfair treatment of consumers, edge providers and innovators. Small 
companies and startups must be able to reach consumers with their innovative products and 
services, and they must be protected against harmful conduct by broadband providers. 
The Notice includes a number of proposals designed to empower consumers and small 
businesses who may find themselves subject to harmful behavior by a broadband provider. For 
example, the Court of Appeals did uphold our existing transparency rule, and the Notice 
proposes to strengthen that rule to require that networks disclose any practices that could change 
a consumer's or a content provider's relationship with the network. The Notice proposes the 
creation of an ombudsperson to serve as a watchdog and advocate for start-ups, small businesses 
and consumers. And the Notice seeks comment on how to ensure that all parties, and especially 
small businesses and start-ups, have effective access to the Commission's dispute resolution and 
enforcement processes. 
This Notice is the first step in the process, and I look forward to comments from all 
interested stakeholders, including members of the general public, as we develop a fulsome record 
on the many questions raised in the Notice. To that end, in an effort to maximize public 
participation in this proceeding, we have established an Open Internet email address ­
openinternet@fcc.gov - to ensure that Americans who may not otherwise have the opportunity 
to participate in an FCC proceeding can make their voices heard. In addition, to ensure sufficient 
opportunity for broad public comment, we have provided a lengthy comment and reply period 
through September 10, 2014, that will allow everyone an opportunity to participate. 
Again, I appreciate your deep interest in this matter and look forward to continued 
engagement with you as the proceeding moves forward. 
Sincerely, 
~~ 
Tom Wheeler 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
W AS H INGTON 
OFFICE OF 
T H E C H AI RM A N 
The Honorable Loretta Sanchez 
U.S. House ofRepresentatives 
1114 Longworth House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20515 
Dear Congresswoman Sanchez: 
June 30, 2014 
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to 
preserve a free and Open Internet for all Americans, and the legal basis upon which the 
Commission relies in proposing to reinstate its rules. I share the sense of urgency expressed by 
many on this matter and moved with dispatch to initiate a proceeding to consider new open 
Internet rules to replace those that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the 
Verizon case. As you know, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Notice") adopted by the 
Commission in May 2014 begins that process. Therein, we ask a number of questions about the 
rules we need to adopt, as well as the appropriate legal foundation for such rules. Your letter 
touches on some of the most important issues presented in the Notice, and I will ensure that it is 
included in the record of the proceeding and considered as part ofthe Commission's review. 
The Commission has struggled for over a decade with how best to protect and promote an 
open Internet. While there has been bipartisan consensus, starting under the Bush 
Administration with Chairman Powell, on the importance of an open Internet to economic 
growth, investment, and innovation, we find ourselves today faced with the worst case scenario: 
we have no Open Internet rules in place to stop broadband providers from limiting Internet 
openness. The status quo is unacceptable. The Commission has already found, and the court has 
agreed, that broadband providers have economic incentives and technological tools to engage in 
behavior that can limit Internet openness and harm consumers and competition. As such, the 
Commission must craft meaningful rules to protect the open Internet, and it must do so promptly. 
I can assure you that I will utilize the best tools available to me to ensure the Commission adopts 
effective and resilient open Internet rules. Unless and until the Commission adopts new rules, 
broadband providers will be free to block, degrade, or otherwise disadvantage innovative 
services on the Internet without threat of sanction by the FCC. 
With respect to the legal foundation of the rules, I believe that the Section 706 framework 
set forth by the court provides us with the tools we need to adopt and implement robust and 
enforceable Open Internet rules. Nevertheless, the Commission also is seriously considering the 
use of Title II of the Communications Act as a basis for legal authority. The Notice explains that 
both Section 706 and Title II are viable solutions to the authority issue, and seeks comment on 
the benefits of each approach, as well as the benefits of one approach over the other, to ensuring 
that the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression. Additionally, the 
Notice seeks comment on other proposals suggesting the Commission could apply both Section 
Page 2-The Honorable Loretta Sanchez 
706 and Title II to component parts of broadband Internet access services and asks about the 
extent to which forbearance from certain provisions of the Act or our rules would be justified so 
that the regulatory treatment of broadband providers is appropriately balanced. . 
With respect to the substance of the rules, the proposals and questions in the Notice are 
designed to elicit a record that will give us a foundation to adopt strong, enforceable rules to 
protect the open Internet and prevent broadband providers from harming consumers or 
competition. I am especially sensitive to concerns about paid prioritization arrangements, and 
the potential such arrangements have for creating an Internet that is fast for a few, and slow for 
everyone else. Let me be crystal clear: there must only be one Internet. It must be fast, robust 
and open for everyone. The Notice addresses this issue head-on, even asking if paid 
prioritization should be banned outright. It also proposes clear rules of the road and aggressive 
enforcement to prevent unfair treatment of consumers, edge providers and innovators. Small 
companies and startups must be able to reach consumers with their innovative products and 
services, and they must be protected against harmful conduct by broadband providers. 
The Notice includes a number of proposals designed to empower consumers and small 
businesses who may find themselves subject to harmful behavior by a broadband provider. For 
example, the Court of Appeals did uphold our existing transparency rule, and the Notice 
proposes to strengthen that rule to require that networks disclose any practices that could change 
a consumer's or a content provider's relationship with the network. The Notice proposes the 
creation of an ombudsperson to serve as a watchdog and advocate for start-ups, small businesses 
and consumers. And the Notice seeks comment on how to ensure that all parties, and especially 
small businesses and start-ups, have effective access to the Commission's dispute resolution and 
enforcement processes. 
This Notice is the first step in the process, and I look forward to comments from all 
interested stakeholders, including members of the general public, as we develop a fulsome record 
on the many questions raised in the Notice. To that end, in an effort to maximize public 
participation in this proceeding, we have established an Open Internet email address ­
openinternet@fcc.gov - to ensure that Americans who may not otherwise have the opportunity 
to participate in an FCC proceeding can make their voices heard. In addition, to ensure sufficient 
opportunity for broad public comment, we have provided a lengthy comment and reply period 
through September I 0, 2014, that will allow everyone an opportunity to participate. 
Again, I appreciate your deep interest in this matter and look forward to continued 
engagement with you as the proceeding moves forward. 
Sincerely, 
--:;;:;-/4. 
Tom Wheeler 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
WASHINGTON 
OFFICE OF 
T HE CHAIR MA N 
The Honorable Kurt Schrader 
U.S. House of Representatives 
108 Cannon House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20515 
Dear Congressman Schrader: 
June 30, 2014 
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to 
preserve a free and Open Internet for all Americans, and the legal basis upon which the 
Commission relies in proposing to reinstate its rules. I share the sense of urgency expressed by 
many on this matter and moved with dispatch to initiate a proceeding to consider new open 
Internet rules to replace those that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the 
Verizon case. As you know, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Notice") adopted by the 
Commission in May 2014 begins that process. Therein, we ask a number of questions about the 
rules we need to adopt, as well as the appropriate legal foundation for such rules. Your letter 
touches on some of the most important issues presented in the Notice, and I will ensure that it is 
included in the record of the proceeding and considered as part of the Commission's review. 
The Commission has struggled for over a decade with how best to protect and promote an 
open Internet. While there has been bipartisan consensus, starting under the Bush 
Administration with Chairman Powell, on the importance of an open Internet to economic 
growth, investment, and innovation, we find ourselves today faced with the worst case scenario: 
we have no Open Internet rules in place to stop broadband providers from limiting Internet 
openness. The stalus quo is unacceptable. The Commission has already found, and the court has 
agreed, that broadband providers have economic incentives and technological tools to engage in 
behavior that can limit Internet openness and harm consumers and competition. As such, the 
Commission must craft meaningful rules to protect the open Internet, and it must do so promptly. 
I can assure you that I will utilize the best tools available to me to ensure the Commission adopts 
effective and resilient open Internet rules. Unless and until the Commission adopts new rules, 
broadband providers will be free to block, degrade, or otherwise disadvantage innovative 
services on the Internet without threat of sanction by the FCC. 
With respect to the legal foundation of the rules, I believe that the Section 706 framework 
set forth by the court provides us with the tools we need to adopt and implement robust and 
enforceable Open Internet rules. Nevertheless, the Commission also is seriously considering the 
use of Title II of the Communications Act as a basis for legal authority. The Notice explains that 
both Section 706 and Title II are viable solutions to the authority issue, and seeks comment on 
the benefits of each approach, as well as the benefits of one approach over the other, to ensuring 
that the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression. Additionally, the 
Notice seeks comment on other proposals suggesting the Commission could apply both Section 
Page 2-The Honorable Kurt Schrader 
706 and Title II to component parts of broadband Internet access services and asks about the 
extent to which forbearance from certain provisions of the Act or our rules would be justified so 
that the regulatory treatment of broadband providers is appropriately balanced. . 
With respect to the substance of the rules, the proposals and questions in the Notice are 
designed to elicit a record that will give us a foundation to adopt strong, enforceable rules to 
protect the open Internet and prevent broadband providers from harming consumers or 
competition. I am especially sensitive to concerns about paid prioritization arrangements, and 
the potential such arrangements have for creating an Internet that is fast for a few, and slow for 
everyone else. Let me be crystal clear: there must only be one Internet. It must be fast, robust 
and open for everyone. The Notice addresses this issue head-on, even asking if paid 
prioritization should be banned outright. It also proposes clear rules of the road and aggressive 
enforcement to prevent unfair treatment of consumers, edge providers and innovators. Small 
companies and startups must be able to reach consumers with their innovative products and 
services, and they must be protected against harmful conduct by broadband providers. 
The Notice includes a number of proposals designed to empower consumers and small 
businesses who may find themselves subject to harmful behavior by a broadband provider. For 
example, the Court of Appeals did uphold our existing transparency rule, and the Notice 
proposes to strengthen that rule to require that networks disclose any practices that could change 
a consumer's or a content provider's relationship with the network. The Notice proposes the 
creation of an ombudsperson to serve as a watchdog and advocate for start-ups, small businesses 
and consumers. And the Notice seeks comment on how to ensure that all parties, and especially 
small businesses and start-ups, have effective access to the Commission's dispute resolution and 
enforcement processes. 
This Notice is the first step in the process, and I look forward to comments from all 
interested stakeholders, including members of the general public, as we develop a fulsome record 
on the many questions raised in the Notice. To that end, in an effort to maximize public 
participation in this proceeding, we have established an Open Internet email address ­
openinternet@fcc.gov - to ensure that Americans who may not otherwise have the opportunity 
to participate in an FCC proceeding can make their voices heard. In addition, to ensure sufficient 
opportunity for broad public comment, we have provided a lengthy comment and reply period 
through September 1 0, 2014, that will allow everyone an opportunity to participate. 
Again, I appreciate your deep interest in this matter and look forward to continued 
engagement with you as the proceeding moves forward. 
Sincerely, 
Tom Wheeler 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
WASHINGTON 
OFf iCE OF 
THE CH ... IR M AN 
The Honorable David Scott 
U.S. House of Representatives 
225 Cannon House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20515 
Dear Congressman Scott: 
June 30, 2014 
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to 
preserve a free and Open Internet for all Americans, and the legal basis upon which the 
Commission relies in proposing to reinstate its rules. 1 share the sense of urgency expressed by 
many on this matter and moved with dispatch to initiate a proceeding to consider new open 
Internet rules to replace those that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the 
Verizon case. As you know, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Notice") adopted by the 
Commission in May 2014 begins that process. Therein, we ask a number of questions about the 
rules we need to adopt, as well as the appropriate legal foundation for such rules. Your letter 
touches on some of the most important issues presented in the Notice , and I will ensure that it is 
included in the record of the proceeding and considered as part of the Commission's review. 
The Commission has struggled for over a decade with how best to protect and promote an 
open Internet. While there has been bipartisan consensus, starting under the Bush 
Administration with Chairman Powell, on the importance of an open Internet to economic 
growth, investment, and innovation, we find ourselves today faced with the worst case scenario: 
we have no Open Internet rules in place to stop broadband providers from limiting Internet 
openness. The status quo is unacceptable. The Commission has already found, and the court has 
agreed, that broadband providers have economic incentives and technological tools to engage in 
behavior that can limit Internet openness and harm consumers and competition. As such, the 
Commission must craft meaningful rules to protect the open Internet, and it must do so promptly. 
I can assure you that I will utilize the best tools available to me to ensure the Commission adopts 
effective and resilient open Internet rules. Unless and until the Commission adopts new rules, 
broadband providers will be free to block, degrade, or otherwise disadvantage innovative 
services on the Internet without threat of sanction by the FCC. 
With respect to the legal foundation of the rules, 1 believe that the Section 706 framework 
set forth by the court provides us with the tools we need to adopt and implement robust and 
enforceable Open Internet rules. Nevertheless, the Commission also is seriously considering the 
use of Title II of the Communications Act as a basis for legal authority. The Notice explains that 
both Section 706 and Title II are viable solutions to the authority issue, and seeks comment on 
the benefits of each approach, as well as the benefits of one approach over the other, to ensuring 
that the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression. Additionally, the 
Notice seeks comment on other proposals suggesting the Commission could apply both Section 
Page 2- The Honorable David Scott 
706 and Title II to component parts of broadband Internet access services and asks about the 
extent to which forbearance from certain provisions of the Act or our rules would be justified so 
that the regulatory treatment of broadband providers is appropriately balanced. . 
With respect to the substance of the rules, the proposals and questions in the Notice are 
designed to elicit a record that will give us a foundation to adopt strong, enforceable rules to 
protect the open Internet and prevent broadband providers from harming consumers or 
competition. I am especially sensitive to concerns about paid prioritization arrangements, and 
the potential such arrangements have for creating an Internet that is fast for a few, and slow for 
everyone else. Let me be crystal clear: there must only be one Internet. It must be fast, robust 
and open for everyone. The Notice addresses this issue head-on, even asking if paid 
prioritization should be banned outright. It also proposes clear rules of the road and aggressive 
enforcement to prevent unfair treatment of consumers, edge providers and innovators. Small 
companies and startups must be able to reach consumers with their innovative products and 
services, and they must be protected against harmful conduct by broadband providers. 
The Notice includes a number of proposals designed to empower consumers and small 
businesses who may find themselves subject to harmful behavior by a broadband provider. For 
example, the Court of Appeals did uphold our existing transparency rule, and the Notice 
proposes to strengthen that rule to require that networks disclose any practices that could change 
a consumer's or a content provider's relationship with the network. The Notice proposes the 
creation of an ombudsperson to serve as a watchdog and advocate for start-ups, small businesses 
and consumers. And the Notice seeks comment on how to ensure that all parties, and especially 
small businesses and start-ups, have effective access to the Commission's dispute resolution and 
enforcement processes. 
This Notice is the first step in the process, and I look forward to comments from all 
interested stakeholders, including members of the general public, as we develop a fulsome record 
on the many questions raised in the Notice. To that end, in an effort to maximize public 
participation in this proceeding, we have established an Open Internet email address ­
openinternet@fcc.gov - to ensure that Americans who may not otherwise have the opportunity 
to participate in an FCC proceeding can make their voices heard. In addition, to ensure sufficient 
opportunity for broad public comment, we have provided a lengthy comment and reply period 
through September 10, 2014, that will allow everyone an opportunity to participate. 
Again, I appreciate your deep interest in this matter and look forward to continued 
engagement with you as the proceeding moves forward. 
Sincerely, 
-:;;;;-#(/_ 
Tom Wheeler 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISS ION 
WASHINGTON 
O F FICE OF 
THE C H ... IRM " N 
The Honorable Albio Sires 
U.S. House of Representatives 
2342 Rayburn House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20515 
Dear Congressman Sires: 
June 30,2014 
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to 
preserve a free and Open Internet for all Americans, and the legal basis upon which the 
Commission relies in proposing to reinstate its rules. I share the sense of urgency expressed by 
many on this matter and moved with dispatch to initiate a proceeding to consider new open 
Internet rules to replace those that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the 
Verizon case. As you know, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Notice") adopted by the 
Commission in May 2014 begins that process. Therein, we ask a number of questions about the 
rules we need to adopt, as well as the appropriate legal foundation for such rules. Your letter 
touches on some of the most important issues presented in the Notice, and I will ensure that it is 
included in the record of the proceeding and considered as part of the Commission's review. 
The Commission has struggled for over a decade with how best to protect and promote an 
open Internet. While there has been bipartisan consensus, starting under the Bush 
Administration with Chairman Powell, on the importance of an open Internet to economic 
growth, investment, and innovation, we find ourselves today faced with the worst case scenario: 
we have no Open Internet rules in place to stop broadband providers from limiting Internet 
openness. The status quo is unacceptable. The Commission has already found, and the court has 
agreed, that broadband providers have economic incentives and technological tools to engage in 
behavior that can limit Internet openness and harm consumers and competition. As such, the 
Commission must craft meaningful rules to protect the open Internet, and it must do so promptly. 
I can assure you that I will utilize the best tools available to me to ensure the Commission adopts 
effective and resilient open Internet rules. Unless and until the Commission adopts new rules, 
broadband providers will be free to block, degrade, or otherwise disadvantage innovative 
services on the Internet without threat of sanction by the FCC. 
With respect to the legal foundation of the rules, I believe that the Section 706 framework 
set forth by the court provides us with the tools we need to adopt and implement robust and 
enforceable Open Internet rules. Nevertheless, the Commission also is seriously considering the 
use ofTitle II of the Communications Act as a basis for legal authority. The Notice explains that 
both Section 706 and Title II are viable solutions to the authority issue, and seeks comment on 
the benefits of each approach, as well as the benefits of one approach over the other, to ensuring 
that the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression. Additionally, the 
Notice seeks comment on other proposals suggesting the Commission could apply both Section 
Page 2-The Honorable Albio Sires 
706 and Title II to component parts of broadband Internet access services and asks about the 
extent to which forbearance from certain provisions of the Act or our rules would be justified so 
that the regulatory treatment of broadband providers is appropriately balanced. . 
With respect to the substance of the rules, the proposals and questions in the Notice are 
designed to elicit a record that will give us a foundation to adopt strong, enforceable rules to 
protect the open Internet and prevent broadband providers from harming consumers or 
competition. I am especially sensitive to concerns about paid prioritization arrangements, and 
the potential such arrangements have for creating an Internet that is fast for a few, and slow for 
everyone else. Let me be crystal clear: there must only be one Internet. It must be fast, robust 
and open for everyone. The Notice addresses this issue head-on, even asking if paid 
prioritization should be banned outright. It also proposes clear rules of the road and aggressive 
enforcement to prevent unfair treatment of consumers, edge providers and innovators. Small 
companies and startups must be able to reach consumers with their innovative products and 
services, and they must be protected against harmful conduct by broadband providers. 
The Notice includes a number of proposals designed to empower consumers and small 
businesses who may find themselves subject to harmful behavior by a broadband provider. For 
example, the Court of Appeals did uphold our existing transparency rule, and the Notice 
proposes to strengthen that rule to require that networks disclose any practices that could change 
a consumer's or a content provider's relationship with the network. The Notice proposes the 
creation of an ombudsperson to serve as a watchdog and advocate for start-ups, small businesses 
and consumers. And the Notice seeks comment on how to ensure that all parties, and especially 
small businesses and start-ups, have effective access to the Commission's dispute resolution and 
enforcement processes. 
This Notice is the first step in the process, and I look forward to comments from all 
interested stakeholders, including members of the general public, as we develop a fulsome record 
on the many questions raised in the Notice. To that end, in an effort to maximize public 
participation in this proceeding, we have established an Open Internet email address ­
openinternet@fcc.gov - to ensure that Americans who may not otherwise have the opportunity 
to participate in an FCC proceeding can make their voices heard. In addition, to ensure sufficient 
opportunity for broad public comment, we have provided a lengthy comment and reply period 
through September 1 0, 2014, that will allow everyone an opportunity to participate. 
Again, I appreciate your deep interest in this matter and look forward to continued 
engagement with you as the proceeding moves forward. 
Sincerely, 
-:;;;;-~ 
Tom Wheeler 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
WASHINGTON 
OFFICE OF 
THE CHAIR M AN 
The Honorable Bennie Thompson 
U.S. House ofRepresentatives 
2466 Rayburn House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20515 
Dear Congressman Thompson: 
June 30,2014 
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to 
preserve a free and Open Internet for all Americans, and the legal basis upon which the 
Commission relies in proposing to reinstate its rules. I share the sense of urgency expressed by 
many on this matter and moved with dispatch to initiate a proceeding to consider new open 
Internet rules to replace those that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the 
Verizon case. As you know, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Notice") adopted by the 
Commission in May 2014 begins that process. Therein, we ask a number of questions about the 
rules we need to adopt, as well as the appropriate legal foundation for such rules. Your letter 
touches on some of the most important issues presented in the Notice, and I will ensure that it is 
included in the record of the proceeding and considered as part of the Commission's review. 
The Commission has struggled for over a decade with how best to protect and promote an 
open Internet. While there has been bipartisan consensus, starting under the Bush 
Administration with Chairman Powell, on the importance of an open Internet to economic 
growth, investment, and innovation, we find ourselves today faced with the worst case scenario: 
we have no Open Internet rules in place to stop broadband providers from limiting Internet 
openness. The status quo is unacceptable. The Commission has already found, and the court has 
agreed, that broadband providers have economic incentives and technological tools to engage in 
behavior that can limit Internet openness and harm consumers and competition. As such, the 
Commission must craft meaningful rules to protect the open Internet, and it must do so promptly. 
I can assure you that I will utilize the best tools available to me to ensure the Commission adopts 
effective and resilient open Internet rules. Unless and until the Commission adopts new rules, 
broadband providers will be free to block, degrade, or otherwise disadvantage innovative 
services on the Internet without threat of sanction by the FCC. 
With respect to the legal foundation of the rules, I believe that the Section 706 framework 
set forth by the court provides us with the tools we need to adopt and implement robust and 
enforceable Open Internet rules. Nevertheless, the Commission also is seriously considering the 
use of Title II of the Communications Act as a basis for legal authority. The Notice explains that 
both Section 706 and Title II are viable solutions to the authority issue, and seeks comment on 
the benefits of each approach, as well as the benefits of one approach over the other, to ensuring 
that the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression. Additionally, the 
Notice seeks comment on other proposals suggesting the Commission could apply both Section 
Page 2- The Honorable Bennie Thompson 
706 and Title II to component parts of broadband Internet access services and asks about the 
extent to which forbearance from certain provisions of the Act or our rules would be justified so 
that the regulatory treatment of broadband providers is appropriately balanced. . 
With respect to the substance of the ru les, the proposals and questions in the Notice are 
designed to elicit a record that will give us a foundation to adopt strong, enforceable rules to 
protect the open Internet and prevent broadband providers from harming consumers or 
competition. I am especially sensitive to concerns about paid prioritization arrangements, and 
the potential such arrangements have for creating an Internet that is fast for a few, and slow for 
everyone else. Let me be crystal clear: there must only be one Internet. It must be fast, robust 
and open for everyone. The Notice addresses this issue head-on, even asking if paid 
prioritization should be banned outright. It also proposes clear rules of the road and aggressive 
enforcement to prevent unfair treatment of consumers, edge providers and innovators. Small 
companies and startups must be able to reach consumers with their innovative products and 
services, and they must be protected against harmful conduct by broadband providers. 
The Notice includes a number of proposals designed to empower consumers and small 
businesses who may find themselves subject to harmful behavior by a broadband provider. For 
example, the Court of Appeals did uphold our existing transparency rule, and the Notice 
proposes to strengthen that rule to require that networks disclose any practices that could change 
a consumer's or a content provider's relationship with the network. The Notice proposes the 
creation of an ombudsperson to serve as a watchdog and advocate for start-ups, small businesses 
and consumers. And the Notice seeks comment on how to ensure that all parties, and especially 
small businesses and start-ups, have effective access to the Commission 's dispute resolution and 
enforcement processes. 
This Notice is the first step in the process, and I look forward to comments from all 
interested stakeholders, including members of the general public, as we develop a fulsome record 
on the many questions raised in the Notice. To that end, in an effort to maximize public 
participation in this proceeding, we have established an Open Internet email address ­
openinternet@fcc.gov - to ensure that Americans who may not otherwise have the opportunity 
to participate in an FCC proceeding can make their voices heard. In addition, to ensure sufficient 
opportunity for broad public comment, we have provided a lengthy comment and reply period 
through September 10, 2014, that will allow everyone an opportunity to participate. 
Again, I appreciate your deep interest in this matter and look forward to continued 
engagement with you as the proceeding moves forward. 
Sincerely, 
-:;;;;-#;{/_ 
Tom Wheeler 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
WASHINGTON 
OFFICE OF 
THE CHAIRMAN 
The Honorable Marc Veasey 
U.S. House of Representatives 
414 Cannon House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20515 
Dear Congressman Veasey: 
June 30, 2014 
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to 
preserve a free and Open Internet for all Americans, and the legal basis upon which the 
Commission relies in proposing to reinstate its rules. I share the sense of urgency expressed by 
many on this matter and moved with dispatch to initiate a proceeding to consider new open 
Internet rules to replace those that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the 
Verizon case. As you know, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaldng ("Notice") adopted by the 
Commission in May 2014 begins that process. Therein, we ask a number of questions about the 
rules we need to adopt, as well as the appropriate legal foundation for such rules. Your letter 
touches on some of the most important issues presented in the Notice, and I will ensure that it is 
included in the record of the proceeding and considered as part of the Commission's review. 
The Commission has struggled for over a decade with how best to protect and promote an 
open Internet. While there has been bipartisan consensus, starting under the Bush 
Administration with Chairman Powell, on the importance of an open Internet to economic 
growth, investment, and innovation, we find ourselves today faced with the worst case scenario: 
we have no Open Internet rules in place to stop broadband providers from limiting Internet 
openness. The status quo is unacceptable. The Commission has already found, and the court has 
agreed, that broadband providers have economic incentives and technological tools to engage in 
behavior that can limit Internet openness and harm consumers and competition. As such, the 
Commission must craft meaningful rules to protect the open Internet, and it must do so promptly. 
l can assure you that I will utilize the best tools available to me to ensure the Commission adopts 
effective and resilient open Internet rules. Unless and until the Commission adopts new rules, 
broadband providers will be free to block, degrade, or otherwise disadvantage innovative 
services on the Internet without threat of sanction by the FCC. 
With respect to the legal foundation of the rules, I believe that the Section 706 framework 
set forth by the court provides us with the tools we need to adopt and implement robust and 
enforceable Open Internet rules. Nevertheless, the Commission also is seriously considering the 
use of Title II of the Communications Act as a basis for legal authority. The Notice explains that 
both Section 706 and Title II are viable solutions to the authority issue, and seeks comment on 
the benefits of each approach, as well as the benefits of one approach over the other, to ensuring 
that the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression. Additionally, the 
Notice seeks comment on other proposals suggesting the Commission could apply both Section 
Page 2-The Honorable Marc Veasey 
706 and Title II to component parts of broadband Internet access services and asks about the 
extent to which forbearance from certain provisions of the Act or our rules would be justified so 
that the regulatory treatment of broadband providers is appropriately balanced. . 
With respect to the substance of the rules, the proposals and questions in the Notice are 
designed to elicit a record that will give us a foundation to adopt strong, enforceable rules to 
protect the open Internet and prevent broadband providers from harming consumers or 
competition. I am especially sensitive to concerns about paid prioritization arrangements, and 
the potential such arrangements have for creating an Internet that is fast for a few, and slow for 
everyone else. Let me be crystal clear: there must only be one Internet. It must be fast, robust 
and open for everyone. The Notice addresses this issue head-on, even asking if paid 
prioritization should be banned outright. It also proposes clear rules of the road and aggressive 
enforcement to prevent unfair treatment of consumers, edge providers and innovators. Small 
companies and startups must be able to reach consumers with their innovative products and 
services, and they must be protected against harmful conduct by broadband providers. 
The Notice includes a number of proposals designed to empower consumers and small 
businesses who may find themselves subject to harmful behavior by a broadband provider. For 
example, the Court of Appeals did uphold our existing transparency rule, and the Notice 
proposes to strengthen that rule to require that networks disclose any practices that could change 
a consumer' s or a content provider' s relationship with the network. The Notice proposes the 
creation of an ombudsperson to serve as a watchdog and advocate for start-ups, small businesses 
and consumers. And the Notice seeks comment on how to ensure that all parties, and especially 
small businesses and start-ups, have effective access to the Commission's dispute resolution and 
enforcement processes. 
This Notice is the first step in the process, and I look forward to comments from all 
interested stakeholders, including members of the general public, as we develop a fulsome record 
on the many questions raised in the Notice. To that end, in an effort to maximize public 
participation in this proceeding, we have established an Open Internet email address ­
openinternet@fcc.gov - to ensure that Americans who may not otherwise have the opportunity 
to participate in an FCC proceeding can make their voices heard. In addition, to ensure sufficient 
opportunity for broad public comment, we have provided a lengthy comment and reply period 
through September 10, 2014, that will allow everyone an opportunity to participate. 
Again, I appreciate your deep interest in this matter and look forward to continued 
engagement with you as the proceeding moves forward. 
Sincerely, 
7;;;/:t(t 
Tom Wheeler