FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
SO4
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
June 30, 2014
The Honorable Jim McDermott
U.S. House of Representatives
1035 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman McDermott:
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 Jim McDermott
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 Jim McGovern
U.S. House of Representatives
438 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman McGovern:
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 Jim McGovern
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(Zifcc.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 Jerrold Nadler
U.S. House of Representatives
2110 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Nadler:
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 Jerrold Nadler
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 hanriful 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 COMM ISSION
WASHINGTON
\IS/
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
June 30, 2014
The Honorable Eleanor Norton
U.S. House of Representatives
2136 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congresswoman Norton:
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 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 Eleanor Norton
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(Zifcc.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 Beto ORourke
U.S. House of Representatives
1721 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman O'Rourke:
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 Beto O'Rourke
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 -
openintemet(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
Jz
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
June 30, 2014
The Honorable Mark Pocan
U.S. House of Representatives
313 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Pocan:
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 Mark Pocan
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 Charles Rangel
U.S. House of Representatives
2354 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Rangel:
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 Charles Rangel
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 headon, 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(ZIfcc.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 I NGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
June 30, 2014
The Honorable Tim Ryan
U.S. House of Representatives
1421 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Ryan:
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 Tim Ryan
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 John Sarbanes
U.S. House of Representatives
2444 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Sarbanes:
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 Sarbanes
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
(Iiii FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
June 30, 2014
The Honorable Jan Schakowsky
U.S. House of Representatives
2367 Raybum House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congresswoman Schakowsky:
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 Jan Schakowsky
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
%fMISs04
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
June 30, 2014
The Honorable Robert Scott
U.S. House of Representatives
1201 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Scott:
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 Robert Scott
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
,\
r) FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONWASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
June 30, 2014
The Honorable Jose Serrano
U.S. House of Representatives
2227 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Serrano:
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, J 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 Jose Serrano
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 -
openinternetlifcc.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 Carol Shea-Porter
U.S. House of Representatives
1530 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congresswoman Shea-Porter:
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 Carol Shea-Porter
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
\iss'
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
June 30, 2014
The Honorable Mark Takano
U.S. House of Representatives
1507 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Takano:
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 Mark Takano
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(2Ifcc.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
AlMISs0
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
June 30, 2014
The Honorable John Tierney
U.S. House of Representatives
2238 Raybum House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Tierney:
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 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 Tierney
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
((('fl FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS CoMMissioN
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
June 30, 2014
The Honorable Peter Visclosky
U.S. House of Representatives
2256 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Visciosky:
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 Visciosky
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