:FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
June 30, 2014
The Honorable Earl Blumenauer
U.S. House of Representatives
1111 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Blumenauer:
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to
preserve an open Internet for all Americans. I share your sense of urgency on this matter. For
this reason, I 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, as
you point out, 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, as you specifically urge in your letter, the
Commission is also seriously considering moving forward to adopt rules using Title II of the
Communications Act as the foundation for our legal authority. The Notice seeks comment on the
benefits of both Section 706 and Title II, including the benefits of one approach over the other, to
ensure the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression.
Page 2-The Honorable Earl Blumenauer
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 your concerns about arrangements that would prioritize
certain traffic and allow ISPs to discriminate against other traffic. 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 also 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(äfcc.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
CbAqMIsso$
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
June 30, 2014
The Honorable Michael Capuano
U.S. House of Representatives
1414 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Capuano:
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to
preserve an open Internet for all Americans. I share your sense of urgency on this matter. For
this reason, I 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, as
you point out, 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, as you specifically urge in your letter, the
Commission is also seriously considering moving forward to adopt rules using Title II of the
Communications Act as the foundation for our legal authority. The Notice seeks comment on the
benefits of both Section 706 and Title II, including the benefits of one approach over the other, to
ensure the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression.
Page 2-The Honorable Michael Capuano
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 your concerns about arrangements that would prioritize
certain traffic and allow ISPs to discriminate against other traffic. 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 also 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 ornbudsperson 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
June 30, 2014
The Honorable Andre Carson
U.S. House of Representatives
2453 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Carson:
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to
preserve an open Internet for all Americans. I share your sense of urgency on this matter. For
this reason, I 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, as
you point out, 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, as you specifically urge in your letter, the
Commission is also seriously considering moving forward to adopt rules using Title II of the
Communications Act as the foundation for our legal authority. The Notice seeks comment on the
benefits of both Section 706 and Title II, including the benefits of one approach over the other, to
ensure the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression.
Page 2-The Honorable Andre Carson
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 your concerns about arrangements that would prioritize
certain traffic and allow ISPs to discriminate against other traffic. 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 also 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 -
openinternetfcc.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
WASH! NGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
June 30, 2014
The Honorable David Cicilline
U.S. House of Representatives
128 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Cicilline:
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to
preserve an open Internet for all Americans. I share your sense of urgency on this matter. For
this reason, I 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, as
you point out, 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, as you specifically urge in your letter, the
Commission is also seriously considering moving forward to adopt rules using Title II of the
Communications Act as the foundation for our legal authority. The Notice seeks comment on the
benefits of both Section 706 and Title II, including the benefits of one approach over the other, to
ensure the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression.
Page 2-The Honorable David Cicilline
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 your concerns about arrangements that would prioritize
certain traffic and allow ISPs to discriminate against other traffic. 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 also 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,
2*Z
Tom Wheeler
,'
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASF-IINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
June 30, 2014
The Honorable John Conyers
U.S. House of Representatives
2426 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Conyers:
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to
preserve an open Internet for all Americans. I share your sense of urgency on this matter. For
this reason, I 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, as
you point out, 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, as you specifically urge in your letter, the
Commission is also seriously considering moving forward to adopt rules using Title II of the
Communications Act as the foundation for our legal authority. The Notice seeks comment on the
benefits of both Section 706 and Title II, including the benefits of one approach over the other, to
ensure the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression.
Page 2-The Honorable John Conyers
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 your concerns about arrangements that would prioritize
certain traffic and allow ISPs to discriminate against other traffic. 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 also 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(lifcc.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
q' FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION(:; 5;-';A .11
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
June 30, 2014
The Honorable Peter DeFazio
U.S. House of Representatives
2134 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman DeFazio:
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to
preserve an open Internet for all Americans. I share your sense of urgency on this matter. For
this reason, I 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, as
you point out, 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, as you specifically urge in your letter, the
Commission is also seriously considering moving forward to adopt rules using Title II of the
Communications Act as the foundation for our legal authority. The Notice seeks comment on the
benefits of both Section 706 and Title II, including the benefits of one approach over the other, to
ensure the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression.
Page 2-The Honorable Peter DeFazio
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 your concerns about arrangements that would prioritize
certain traffic and allow ISPs to discriminate against other traffic. 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 also 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
(((1 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMJSSION
WASH INGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
June 30, 2014
The Honorable Donna Edwards
U.S. House of Representatives
2445 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congresswoman Edwards:
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to
preserve an open Internet for all Americans. I share your sense of urgency on this matter. For
this reason, I 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 o/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, as
you point out, 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, as you specifically urge in your letter, the
Commission is also seriously considering moving forward to adopt rules using Title TI of the
Communications Act as the foundation for our legal authority. The Notice seeks comment on the
benefits of both Section 706 and Title II, including the benefits of one approach over the other, to
ensure the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression.
Page 2-The Honorable Donna Edwards
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 your concerns about arrangements that would prioritize
certain traffic and allow ISPs to discriminate against other traffic. 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 also 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
WASH INGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
June 30, 2014
The Honorable Keith Ellison
U.S. House of Representatives
2244 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Ellison:
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to
preserve an open Internet for all Americans. I share your sense of urgency on this matter. For
this reason, I 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, as
you point out, 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, as you specifically urge in your letter, the
Commission is also seriously considering moving forward to adopt rules using Title II of the
Communications Act as the foundation for our legal authority. The Notice seeks comment on the
benefits of both Section 706 and Title II, including the benefits of one approach over the other, to
ensure the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression.
Page 2-The Honorable Keith Ellison
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 your concerns about arrangements that would prioritize
certain traffic and allow ISPs to discriminate against other traffic. 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 also 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 -
openinternetfcc.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
WASH INGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
June 30, 2014
The Honorable Sam Fan
U.S. House of Representatives
1126 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Fan:
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to
preserve an open Internet for all Americans. I share your sense of urgency on this matter. For
this reason, I 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, as
you point out, 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, as you specifically urge in your letter, the
Commission is also seriously considering moving forward to adopt rules using Title II of the
Communications Act as the foundation for our legal authority. The Notice seeks comment on the
benefits of both Section 706 and Title II, including the benefits of one approach over the other, to
ensure the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression.
Page 2-The Honorable Sam Fan
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 your concerns about arrangements that would prioritize
certain traffic and allow ISPs to discriminate against other traffic. 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 also 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(lfcc.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
June 30, 2014
The Honorable Alan Grayson
U.S. House of Representatives
430 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Grayson:
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to
preserve an open Internet for all Americans. I share your sense of urgency on this matter. For
this reason, I 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, as
you point out, 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, as you specifically urge in your letter, the
Commission is also seriously considering moving forward to adopt rules using Title II of the
Communications Act as the foundation for our legal authority. The Notice seeks comment on the
benefits of both Section 706 and Title II, including the benefits of one approach over the other, to
ensure the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression.
Page 2-The Honorable Alan Grayson
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 your concerns about arrangements that would prioritize
certain traffic and allow ISPs to discriminate against other traffic. 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 also 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
IS0
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
June 30, 2014
The Honorable Raul Grijalva
U.S. House of Representatives
1511 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Grijalva:
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to
preserve an open Internet for all Americans. I share your sense of urgency on this matter. For
this reason, I 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, as
you point out, 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, as you specifically urge in your letter, the
Commission is also seriously considering moving forward to adopt rules using Title II of the
Communications Act as the foundation for our legal authority. The Notice seeks comment on the
benefits of both Section 706 and Title II, including the benefits of one approach over the other, to
ensure the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression.
Page 2-The Honorable Raul Grijalva
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 your concerns about arrangements that would prioritize
certain traffic and allow ISPs to discriminate against other traffic. 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 also 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 -
openinternetfcc.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
June 30, 2014
The Honorable Rush Holt
U.S. House of Representatives
1214 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Holt:
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to
preserve an open Internet for all Americans. I share your sense of urgency on this matter. For
this reason, I 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, as
you point out, 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, as you specifically urge in your letter, the
Commission is also seriously considering moving forward to adopt rules using Title II of the
Communications Act as the foundation for our legal authority. The Notice seeks comment on the
benefits of both Section 706 and Title II, including the benefits of one approach over the other, to
ensure the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression.
Page 2-The Honorable Rush Holt
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 your concerns about arrangements that would prioritize
certain traffic and allow ISPs to discriminate against other traffic. 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 also 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
MIS0
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
June 30, 2014
The Honorable Michael Honda
U.S. House of Representatives
1713 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Honda:
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to
preserve an open Internet for all Americans. I share your sense of urgency on this matter. For
this reason, I 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 0/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, as
you point out, 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, as you specifically urge in your letter, the
Commission is also seriously considering moving forward to adopt rules using Title IT of the
Communications Act as the foundation for our legal authority. The Notice seeks comment on the
benefits of both Section 706 and Title TI, including the benefits of one approach over the other, to
ensure the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression.
Page 2-The Honorable Michael Honda
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 your concerns about arrangements that would prioritize
certain traffic and allow ISPs to discriminate against other traffic. 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 also 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 -
openinternetfcc.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
June 30, 2014
The Honorable Jared Huffman
U.S. House of Representatives
1630 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Huffman:
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to
preserve an open Internet for all Americans. I share your sense of urgency on this matter. For
this reason, I 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, as
you point out, 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, as you specifically urge in your letter, the
Commission is also seriously considering moving forward to adopt rules using Title II of the
Communications Act as the foundation for our legal authority. The Notice seeks comment on the
benefits of both Section 706 and Title II, including the benefits of one approach over the other, to
ensure the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression.
Page 2-The Honorable Jared Huffman
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 your concerns about arrangements that would prioritize
certain traffic and allow ISPs to discriminate against other traffic. 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 also 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
WASHI NGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
June 30, 2014
The Honorable Marcy Kaptur
U.S. House of Representatives
2186 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congresswoman Kaptur:
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to
preserve an open Internet for all Americans. I share your sense of urgency on this matter. For
this reason, I 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, as
you point out, 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, as you specifically urge in your letter, the
Commission is also seriously considering moving forward to adopt rules using Title II of the
Communications Act as the foundation for our legal authority. The Notice seeks comment on the
benefits of both Section 706 and Title II, including the benefits of one approach over the other, to
ensure the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression.
Page 2-The Honorable Marcy Kaptur
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 your concerns about arrangements that would prioritize
certain traffic and allow ISPs to discriminate against other traffic. 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 also 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 -
openinternetcfcc.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
June 30, 2014
The Honorable Barbara Lee
U.S. House of Representatives
2267 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congresswoman Lee:
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to
preserve an open Internet for all Americans. I share your sense of urgency on this matter. For
this reason, I 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, as
you point out, 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, as you specifically urge in your letter, the
Commission is also seriously considering moving forward to adopt rules using Title II of the
Communications Act as the foundation for our legal authority. The Notice seeks comment on the
benefits of both Section 706 and Title II, including the benefits of one approach over the other, to
ensure the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression.
Page 2-The Honorable Barbara Lee
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 your concerns about arrangements that would prioritize
certain traffic and allow ISPs to discriminate against other traffic. 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 also 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
CbAfMISs\O
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
June 30, 2014
The Honorable John Lewis
U.S. House of Representatives
343 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Lewis:
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to
preserve an open Internet for all Americans. I share your sense of urgency on this matter. For
this reason, I 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, as
you point out, 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, as you specifically urge in your letter, the
Commission is also seriously considering moving forward to adopt rules using Title II of the
Communications Act as the foundation for our legal authority. The Notice seeks comment on the
benefits of both Section 706 and Title II, including the benefits of one approach over the other, to
ensure the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression.
Page 2-The Honorable John Lewis
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 your concerns about arrangements that would prioritize
certain traffic and allow ISPs to discriminate against other traffic. 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 also 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
if
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
June 30, 2014
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren
U.S. House of Representatives
1401 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congresswoman Lofgren:
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to
preserve an open Internet for all Americans. I share your sense of urgency on this matter. For
this reason, I 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, as
you point out, 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, as you specifically urge in your letter, the
Commission is also seriously considering moving forward to adopt rules using Title II of the
Communications Act as the foundation for our legal authority. The Notice seeks comment on the
benefits of both Section 706 and Title II, including the benefits of one approach over the other, to
ensure the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression.
Page 2-The Honorable Zoe Lofgren
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 your concerns about arrangements that would prioritize
certain traffic and allow ISPs to discriminate against other traffic. 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 also 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
4MISS
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
June 30, 2014
The Honorable Alan Lowenthal
U.S. House of Representatives
515 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Lowenthal:
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to
preserve an open Internet for all Americans. I share your sense of urgency on this matter. For
this reason, I 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, as
you point out, 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, as you specifically urge in your letter, the
Commission is also seriously considering moving forward to adopt rules using Title II of the
Communications Act as the foundation for our legal authority. The Notice seeks comment on the
benefits of both Section 706 and Title II, including the benefits of one approach over the other, to
ensure the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression.
Page 2-The Honorable Alan Lowenthal
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 your concerns about arrangements that would prioritize
certain traffic and allow ISPs to discriminate against other traffic. 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 also 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
June 30, 2014
The Honorable Betty McCollum
U.S. House of Representatives
1714 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congresswoman McCollum:
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding the need to reinstate rules to
preserve an open Internet for all Americans. I share your sense of urgency on this matter. For
this reason, I 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, as
you point out, 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, as you specifically urge in your letter, the
Commission is also seriously considering moving forward to adopt rules using Title II of the
Communications Act as the foundation for our legal authority. The Notice seeks comment on the
benefits of both Section 706 and Title II, including the benefits of one approach over the other, to
ensure the Internet remains an open platform for innovation and expression.
Page 2-The Honorable Betty McCollum
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 your concerns about arrangements that would prioritize
certain traffic and allow ISPs to discriminate against other traffic. 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 also 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 -
openinternetfcc.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