Statement of
Tom Wheeler
Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
Before the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
United States House of Representatives
Hearing on
“FCC: Process and Transparency”
March 17, 2015
Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Cummings, Members of the Committee, thank you 
for inviting me to testify today about the Open Internet Order that the Federal Communications 
Commission (FCC) adopted at our February meeting.  I am proud of the process the Commission 
ran to develop this Order. It was one of the most open and transparent in Commission history, 
and the public’s participation was unprecedented.
The roadmap we followed to develop this order was a process that Congress established 
close to 70 years ago in the Administrative Procedure Act.  We made a public proposal, we 
invited interested parties to comment on our proposal – which they did in record numbers –
and then we adopted a final rule based on this record.  The final result of this year-long process
is rules that protect and preserve the open Internet, while promoting continued investment in 
broadband networks.         
Our rulemaking process started last January, after most of the 2010 Open Internet rules
were remanded to us by the court.  At that point, we were faced with a significant challenge: 
putting in place Open Internet protections that are legally sustainable and ensure the Internet 
remains an open platform for innovation, expression, and economic growth. 
2Last April I circulated a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that included a set 
of Open Internet protections and also asked questions about the best way to achieve an Open 
Internet.  The Open Internet NPRM adopted in May proposed a solution based on Section 706 
of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It also specifically asked an extensive series of 
questions as to whether Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 would be a better solution. 
A quick point on our procedures. While historically, some NPRMs just asked questions,
during my chairmanship I have made it a policy to present draft NPRMs to my colleagues that 
contain specific proposals as a means to flag key concepts for commenters’ attention. I believe 
this is an important part of an open and transparent rulemaking process.  But let’s be clear, the 
proposal is tentative, not a final conclusion, and the purpose of the comment period is to fully 
test the concept. In this instance, as in others, it worked as desired to focus the debate.
The process of the Open Internet rulemaking was one of the most open and expansive 
processes the FCC has ever run. Stakeholders – like start-ups, public interest groups, tech 
companies, think-tanks, and Internet service providers (ISPs) – weighed in like never before.  
Moreover, the Commission held a series of six public roundtables to explore the legal, technical, 
and economic facets of Open Internet protections.  
We heard from over 140 Members of Congress. We heard from the Administration, 
both in the form of President Obama’s very public statement of November 10 and in the form 
of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s formal submission. Here 
I would like to be clear.  There were no secret instructions from the White House.  I did not, as 
CEO of an independent agency, feel obligated to follow the President’s recommendation.  But I 
did feel obligated to treat it with respect just as I have with the input I received – both pro and 
con - from 140 Senators and Representatives.
Most significantly of all, we heard from nearly four million Americans, who 
overwhelmingly spoke in favor of preserving a free and open Internet.  
3We listened, and we learned.  And on the basis of this tremendous public record, I’m 
proud to say we did just what Congress envisioned in the APA: we adjusted our proposal along 
the way.  
My initial proposal sought to reinstate the 2010 rules.  The tentative conclusion put 
forth in the NPRM suggested the FCC could assure Internet openness by applying a “commercial 
reasonableness” test under Section 706 to determine appropriate behavior of ISPs.  As the 
process continued, I listened to countless consumers, innovators, and investors around the 
country. I also reviewed many of the submissions in the record and became concerned that the 
relatively untested “commercially reasonable” standard might be subsequently interpreted to 
mean what was reasonable for ISPs’ commercial arrangements, not what was reasonable for 
consumers.  That, of course, would be the wrong conclusion. It was an outcome that was 
unacceptable. 
That’s why, over the summer, I began exploring how to utilize Title II and its well-
established “just and reasonable” standard.  As previously indicated, this was an approach on 
which we had sought comment in the NPRM and about which I had specifically spoken, saying 
that all approaches, including Title II, were “very much on the table” for consideration.  
You have asked whether there were secret instructions from the White House. Again, I 
repeat the answer is no. 
Now, the question becomes whether the President’s announcement on November 10 
had an impact on the Open Internet debate, including at the FCC. Of course it did.
The push for Title II had been hard and continuous from Democratic members of 
Congress. The President’s weighing in to support their position gave the whole Title II issue new 
prominence. Of course, we had been working on approaches to Title II, including a combined 
Title II/Section 706 solution, for some time. The President’s focus on Title II put wind in the sails 
of everyone looking for strong open Internet protections. It also encouraged those who had 
been opposing any government involvement to, for the first time, support legislation with 
bright line rules.
4As I considered Title II, it became apparent that rather than being a monolith, it was a 
very fluid concept. The record contained multiple approaches to the use of Title II. One of those 
was the Title II/Sec. 706 “hybrid” that bifurcated – some would say artificially – Internet service. 
Another – the approach we ultimately chose – used Title II/Sec. 706, but without the 
bifurcation. Still another – the one supported by the President – was only Title II without 
Section 706. All of these were on the table prior to the President’s statement.
Let me be specific. We were exploring the viability of the bifurcated approach. I had 
received option papers on using Title II in a manner patterned after its application to the 
wireless voice industry. And I had, from the outset, indicated a straight Title II was being 
considered.
A key consideration throughout this deliberation was the potential impact of any 
regulation on the capital formation necessary for the construction of broadband infrastructure. 
An interesting result of the President’s statement was the absence of a reaction from the 
capital markets. When you talk about the impact of the President’s statement, this was an 
important data point, resulting, I believe, from the President’s position against rate regulation. 
It was, of course, the same goal I had been looking to achieve from the outset.
As we moved to a conclusion, I was reminded how it was not necessary to invoke all 48 
sections of Title II.  In this regard, I had been considering the substantial success of the wireless 
voice industry after it was deemed a Title II carrier pursuant to Section 332 of the 
Communications Act.  In applying Title II, but limiting its applicable provisions, the Congress and 
the Commission enabled a wireless voice business with hundreds of billions of dollars of 
investment and a record of innovation that made it the best in the world. This is the model for 
the ultimate recommendation I put forward to my colleagues.
There were other industry data points that informed my thinking and the Commission’s 
analysis. One was the recognition of interconnection as an important issue – a topic not 
covered by the Administration’s position. Another was my letter to Verizon Wireless about its 
announcement to limit “unlimited” data customers if the subscriber went over a certain 
5amount of data used in a month, a policy it ultimately reversed. Of particular note was the 
active bidding (and ultimately overwhelming success) of the AWS-3 spectrum auction at the 
end of 2014 and the beginning of 2015, which showed that investment in networks – even in 
the face of the potential classification of mobile Internet access under Title II – continued to 
flourish. Other industry data points included the work of Wall Street analysts, and the 
statements of ISPs themselves, including Sprint, T-Mobile, Frontier, and hundreds of small rural 
carriers, that they would continue to invest under a Title II framework.
Ultimately, the collective findings of the public record influenced the evolution of my 
thinking and the final conclusion that modern, light-touch Title II reclassification, accompanied 
by Section 706, provides the strongest foundation for the Open Internet rules.  Using this 
authority, we adopted strong and balanced protections that assure the rights of Internet users 
to go where they want, when they want, protect the open Internet as a level playing field for 
innovators and entrepreneurs, and preserve the economic incentives for ISPs to invest in fast 
and competitive broadband networks.
I stand ready to answer your questions.