OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON April 20, 2018 The Honorable Barbara Lee U.S. House of Representatives 2267 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congresswoman Lee: Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which reestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework that governed such practices for almost twenty years. At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the United States. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Internet economy became the envy of the world. Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the Internet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s to govern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the Internet had been a stunning success. Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition between providers. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions of dollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internet era. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order. Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton's pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or the fundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes. Page 2-The Honorable Barbara Lee By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This means there will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways that companies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it's a freer and more open Internet. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency among ISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, and the failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure that consumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they develop new products and services. Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure that consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." But now we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulators guarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way they will be in the future. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be entered into the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Ajit V. Pai OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON April 20, 2018 The Honorable Beto O'Rourke U.S. House of Representatives 1330 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman ORourke: Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which reestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework that governed such practices for almost twenty years. At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the United States. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Internet economy became the envy of the world. Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the Internet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 193 Os to govern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the Internet had been a stunning success. Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition between providers. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions of dollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internet era. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order. Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton's pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or the fundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes. Page 2-The Honorable Beto O'Rourke By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This means there will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways that companies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it's a freer and more open Internet. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency among ISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, and the failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure that consumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they develop new products and services. Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure that consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." But now we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulators guarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way they will be in the future. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be entered into the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, , A +T D r-1J1L V . I L1 OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON April 20, 2018 The Honorable Betty McCollum U.S. House of Representatives 2256 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congresswoman McCollum: Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which reestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework that governed such practices for almost twenty years. At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the United States. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Internet economy became the envy of the world. Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the Internet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 193 Os to govern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the Internet had been a stunning success. Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition between providers. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions of dollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internet era. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order. Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton's pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or the fundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes. Page 2-The Honorable Betty McCollum By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This means there will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways that companies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it's a freer and more open Internet. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency among ISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, and the failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure that consumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they develop new products and services. Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure that consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." But now we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulators guarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way they will be in the future. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be entered into the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, II (J OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON April 20, 2018 The Honorable Bonnie Watson Coleman U.S. House of Representatives 1535 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congresswoman Watson Coleman: Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which reestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework that governed such practices for almost twenty years. At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the United States. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Internet economy became the envy of the world. Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the Internet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1 930s to govern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the Internet had been a stunning success. Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition between providers. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions of dollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internet era. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order. Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton's pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or the fundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes. Page 2-The Honorable Bonnie Watson Coleman By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 50. This means there will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways that companies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it's a freer and more open Internet. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency among ISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, and the failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure that consumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they develop new products and services. Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure that consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." But now we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulators guarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way they will be in the future. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be entered into the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, A + \I D f)J1L V . I LI OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON April 20, 2018 The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney U.S. House of Representatives 2308 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congresswoman Maloney: Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which reestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework that governed such practices for almost twenty years. At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the United States. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Internet economy became the envy of the world. Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the Internet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s to govern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the Internet had been a stunning success. Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition between providers. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions of dollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internet era. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order. Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton's pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or the fundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes. Page 2-The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This means there will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways that companies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it's a freer and more open Internet. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency among ISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, and the failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure that consumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they develop new products and services. Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure that consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." But now we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat.. In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulators guarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way they will be in the future. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be entered into the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Ajit V. Pai - cOMMu ( , OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON April 20, 2018 The Honorable Chellie Pingree U.S. House of Representatives 2162 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congresswoman Pingree: Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which reestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework that governed such practices for almost twenty years. At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the United States. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Internet economy became the envy of the world. Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the Internet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 193 Os to govern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the Internet had been a stunning success. Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition between providers. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions of dollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internet era. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order. Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton's pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or the fundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes. Page 2-The Honorable Chellie Pingree By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This means there will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways that companies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it's a freer and more open Internet. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency among ISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, and the failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure that consumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they develop new products and services. Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure that consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." But now we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulators guarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way they will be in the future. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be entered into the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON April 20, 2018 The Honorable Don Beyer U.S. House of Representatives 1119 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Beyer: Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which reestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework that governed such practices for almost twenty years. At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the United States. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Internet economy became the envy of the world. Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the Internet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 193 Os to govern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the Internet had been a stunning success. Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition between providers. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions of dollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internet era. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order. Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton's pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or the fundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes. Page 2-The Honorable Don Beyer By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This means there will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways that companies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it's a freer and more open Internet. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency among ISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, and the failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure that consumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they develop new products and services. Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure that consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." But now we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulators guarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way they will be in the future. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be entered into the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Ajit V. Pai OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON April 20, 2018 The Honorable Earl Blumenauer U.S. House of Representatives 1111 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Blumenauer: Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which reestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework that governed such practices for almost twenty years. At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet . . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the United States. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Internet economy became the envy of the world. Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the Internet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s to govern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the Internet had been a stunning success. Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition between providers. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions of dollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internet era. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order. Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton's pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or the fundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes. Page 2-The Honorable Earl Blumenauer By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This means there will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways that companies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it's a freer and more open Internet. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency among ISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, and the failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure that consumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they develop new products and services. Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure that consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." But now we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulators guarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way they will be in the future. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be entered into the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, 11 Ajit V. Pai OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON April 20, 2018 The Honorable Grace F. Napolitano U.S. House of Representatives 1610 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congresswoman Napolitano: Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which reestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework that governed such practices for almost twenty years. At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the United States. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Internet economy became the envy of the world. Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the Internet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s to govern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the Internet had been a stunning success. Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition between providers. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions of dollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internet era. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order. Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton's pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or the fundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes. Page 2-The Honorable Grace F. Napolitano By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This means there will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways that companies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it's a freer and more open Internet. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency among ISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, and the failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure that consumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they develop new products and services. Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure that consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." But now we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulators guarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way they will be in the future. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be entered into the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, (j AjitV.Pai OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON April 20, 2018 The Honorable Jamie Raskin U.S. House of Representatives 431 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congresswoman Raskin: Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which reestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework that governed such practices for almost twenty years. At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the United States. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Internet economy became the envy of the world. Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the Internet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1 930s to govern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the Internet had been a stunning success. Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition between providers. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions of dollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internet era. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order. Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton's pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or the fundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes. Page 2-The Honorable Jamie Raskin By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This means there will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways that companies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it's a freer and more open Internet. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency among ISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, and the failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure that consumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they develop new products and services. Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure that consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." But now we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulators guarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way they will be in the future. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be entered into the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, ('I OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON April 20, 2018 The Honorable Jan Schakowsky U.S. House of Representatives 2367 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congresswoman Schakowsky: Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which reestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework that governed such practices for almost twenty years. At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfeftered by Federal or State regulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the United States. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Internet economy became the envy of the world. Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the Internet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1 930s to govern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the Internet had been a stunning success. Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition between providers. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions of dollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internet era. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order. Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton's pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or the fundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes. Page 2-The Honorable Jan Schakowsky By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This means there will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways that companies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it's a freer and more open Internet. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency among ISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, and the failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure that consumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they develop new products and services. Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure that consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." But now we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulators guarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way they will be in the future. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be entered into the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON April 20, 2018 The Honorable Jared Huffman U.S. House of Representatives 1406 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Huffman: Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which reestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework that governed such practices for almost twenty years. At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the United States. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Internet economy became the envy of the world. Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the Internet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s to govern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the Internet had been a stunning success. Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition between providers. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions of dollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internet era. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order. Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton's pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or the fundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes. Page 2-The Honorable Jared Huffman By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This means there will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways that companies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it's a freer and more open Internet. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency among ISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, and the failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure that consumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they develop new products and services. Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure that consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." But now we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulators guarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way they will be in the future. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be entered into the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any ftirther assistance. Sincerely, (\ AjitV.Pai OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON April 20, 2018 The Honorable Jared Polis U.S. House of Representatives 1727 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Polis: Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which reestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework that governed such practices for almost twenty years. At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the United States. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Internet economy became the envy of the world. Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the Internet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s to govern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the Internet had been a stunning success. Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition between providers. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions of dollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internet era. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order. Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton's pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or the fundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes. Page 2-The Honorable Jared Polis By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This means there will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways that companies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it's a freer and more open Internet. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency among ISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, and the failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure that consumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they develop new products and services. Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure that consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." But now we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulators guarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way they will be in the future. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be entered into the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON April 20, 2018 The Honorable Jim McGovern U.S. House of Representatives 438 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman McGovern: Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which reestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework that governed such practices for almost twenty years. At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the United States. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Internet economy became the envy of the world. Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the Internet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 193 Os to govern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the Internet had been a stunning success. Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition between providers. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions of dollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internet era. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order. Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton's pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or the fundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes. Page 2-The Honorable Jim McGovern By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This means there will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways that companies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it's a freer and more open Internet. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency among ISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, and the failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure that consumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they develop new products and services. Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure that consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." But now we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulators guarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way they will be in the future. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be entered into the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Ajit V. Pai OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON April 20, 2018 The Honorable Jose B. Serrano U.S. House of Representatives 2354 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Serrano: Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which reestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework that governed such practices for almost twenty years. At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the United States. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Internet economy became the envy of the world. Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the Internet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s to govern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the Internet had been a stunning success. Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition between providers. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions of dollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internet era. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order. Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton's pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or the fundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes. Page 2-The Honorable Jose B. Serrano By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This means there will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways that companies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it's a freer and more open Internet. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency among ISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, and the failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure that consumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they develop new products and services. Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure that consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." But now we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulators guarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way they will be in the future. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be entered into the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. I-' lot", OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON April 20, 2018 The Honorable Katherine M. Clark U.S. House of Representatives 1415 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congresswoman Clark: Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which reestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework that governed such practices for almost twenty years. At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet . . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the United States. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Internet economy became the envy of the world. Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the Internet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s to govern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the Internet had been a stunning success. Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition between providers. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions of dollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internet era. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order. Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton's pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or the fundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes. Page 2-The Honorable Katherine M. Clark By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 50. This means there will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways that companies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it's a freer and more open Internet. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency among ISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, and the failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure that consumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they develop new products and services. Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure that consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." But now we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulators guarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way they will be in the future. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be entered into the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, (J Ajit V. Pai OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON April 20, 2018 The Honorable Keith Ellison U.S. House of Representatives 2263 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Ellison: Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which reestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework that governed such practices for almost twenty years. At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the United States. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Internet economy became the envy of the world. Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the Internet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s to govern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the Internet had been a stunning success. Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition between providers. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions of dollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internet era. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order. Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton's pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or the fundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes. Page 2-The Honorable Keith Ellison By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This means there will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways that companies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it's a freer and more open Internet. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency among ISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, and the failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure that consumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they develop new products and services. Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure that consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." But now we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulators guarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way they will be in the future. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be entered into the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Ajit V. Pai OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON April 20, 2018 The Honorable Lloyd Doggett U.S. House of Representatives 2307 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Doggett: Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which reestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework that governed such practices for almost twenty years. At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet . . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the United States. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Internet economy became the envy of the world. Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the Internet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s to govern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the Internet had been a stunning success. Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition between providers. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions of dollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internet era. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order. Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton's pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or the fundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes. Page 2-The Honorable Lloyd Doggett By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This means there will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways that companies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it's a freer and more open Internet. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency among ISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, and the failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure that consumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they develop new products and services. Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure that consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." But now we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulators guarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way they will be in the future. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be entered into the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, ViVaAJ Ajit V. Pai OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON April 20, 2018 The Honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo U.S. House of Representatives 2441 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congresswoman Bordallo: Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which reestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework that governed such practices for almost twenty years. At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet.. . unfettered by Federal or State regulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the United States. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Internet economy became the envy of the world. Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the Internet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s to govern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the Internet had been a stunning success. Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition between providers. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions of dollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internet era. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order. Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton's pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or the fundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes. Page 2-The Honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This means there will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways that companies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it's a freer and more open Internet. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency among ISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, and the failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure that consumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they develop new products and services. Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure that consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." But now we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulators guarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way they will be in the future. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be entered into the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, V Ajit V. Pai OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON April 20, 2018 The Honorable Mark Pocan U.S. House of Representatives 1421 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Pocan: Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which reestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework that governed such practices for almost twenty years. At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the United States. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Internet economy became the envy of the world. Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the Internet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s to govern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the Internet had been a stunning success. Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition between providers. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions of dollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internet era. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order. Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton's pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or the fundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes. Page 2-The Honorable Mark Pocan By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This means there will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways that companies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it's a freer and more open Internet. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency among ISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, and the failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure that consumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they develop new products and services. Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure that consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." But now we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulators guarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way they will be in the future. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be entered into the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON April 20, 2018 The Honorable Mark Takano U.S. House of Representatives 1507 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Takano: Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which reestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework that governed such practices for almost twenty years. At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the United States. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Internet economy became the envy of the world. Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the Internet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 193 Os to govern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the Internet had been a stunning success. Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition between providers. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions of dollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internet era. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order. Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton's pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or the fundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes. Page 2-The Honorable Mark Takano By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This means there will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways that companies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it's a freer and more open Internet. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency among ISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, and the failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure that consumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they develop new products and services. Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure that consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." But now we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulators guarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way they will be in the future. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be entered into the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Ajit V. Pai OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON April 20, 2018 The Honorable Michael E. Capuano U.S. House of Representatives 1414 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Capuano: Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which reestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework that governed such practices for almost twenty years. At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the United States. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Internet economy became the envy of the world. Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the Internet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 193 Os to govern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the Internet had been a stunning success. Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition between providers. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions of dollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internet era. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order. Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton's pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or the fundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes. Page 2-The Honorable Michael E. Capuano By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This means there will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways that companies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it's a freer and more open Internet. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency among ISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, and the failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure that consumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they develop new products and services. Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure that consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." But now we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulators guarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way they will be in the future. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be entered into the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, 1 1h AjitV.Pai OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON April 20, 2018 The Honorable Michelle Lujan Grisham U.S. House of Representatives 214 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congresswoman Lujan Grisham: Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which reestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework that governed such practices for almost twenty years. At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet.. . unfettered by Federal or State regulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the United States. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Internet economy became the envy of the world. Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the Internet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s to govern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the Internet had been a stunning success. Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition between providers. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions of dollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internet era. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order. Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton's pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or the fundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes. Page 2-The Honorable Michelle Lujan Grisham By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This means there will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways that companies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it's a freer and more open Internet. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency among ISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, and the failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure that consumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they develop new products and services. Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure that consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." But now we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulators guarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way they will be in the future. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be entered into the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, vi? Ajit V. Pai O F F I C E O F T H E C H A I R M A N F E D E R A L C O M M U N I C A T I O N S C O M M I S S I O N W A S H I N G T O N A p r i l 2 0 , 2 0 1 8 T h e H o n o r a b l e P e t e r A . D e F a z i o U . S . H o u s e o f R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s 2 1 3 4 R a y b u r n H o u s e O f f i c e B u i l d i n g W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . 2 0 5 1 5 D e a r C o n g r e s s m a n D e F a z i o : T h a n k y o u f o r y o u r l e t t e r r e g a r d i n g t h e R e s t o r i n g I n t e r n e t F r e e d o m O r d e r , w h i c h r e e s t a b l i s h e d t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e F e d e r a l T r a d e C o m m i s s i o n t o o v e r s e e t h e n e t w o r k m a n a g e m e n t p r a c t i c e s o f I n t e r n e t s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s w h i l e r e t u r n i n g t o t h e l i g h t - t o u c h l e g a l f r a m e w o r k t h a t g o v e r n e d s u c h p r a c t i c e s f o r a l m o s t t w e n t y y e a r s . A t t h e d a w n o f t h e c o m m e r c i a l I n t e r n e t i n 1 9 9 6 , P r e s i d e n t C l i n t o n a n d a R e p u b l i c a n C o n g r e s s a g r e e d t h a t i t w o u l d b e t h e p o l i c y o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s " t o p r e s e r v e t h e v i b r a n t a n d c o m p e t i t i v e f r e e m a r k e t t h a t p r e s e n t l y e x i s t s f o r t h e I n t e r n e t . . . u n f e t t e r e d b y F e d e r a l o r S t a t e r e g u l a t i o n . " T h i s b i p a r t i s a n p o l i c y w o r k e d . E n c o u r a g e d b y l i g h t - t o u c h r e g u l a t i o n , t h e p r i v a t e s e c t o r i n v e s t e d o v e r $ 1 . 5 t r i l l i o n t o b u i l d f i x e d a n d m o b i l e n e t w o r k s t h r o u g h o u t t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . I n n o v a t o r s a n d e n t r e p r e n e u r s g r e w s t a r t u p s i n t o g l o b a l g i a n t s . A m e r i c a ' s I n t e r n e t e c o n o m y b e c a m e t h e e n v y o f t h e w o r l d . T h e n , i n e a r l y 2 0 1 5 , t h e F C C j e t t i s o n e d t h i s s u c c e s s f u l , b i p a r t i s a n a p p r o a c h t o t h e I n t e r n e t a n d d e c i d e d t o s u b j e c t t h e I n t e r n e t t o u t i l i t y - s t y l e r e g u l a t i o n d e s i g n e d i n t h e 1 9 3 0 s t o g o v e r n M a B e l l . T h i s d e c i s i o n w a s a m i s t a k e . F o r o n e t h i n g , t h e r e w a s n o p r o b l e m t o s o l v e . T h e I n t e r n e t w a s n ' t b r o k e n i n 2 0 1 5 . W e w e r e n ' t l i v i n g i n a d i g i t a l d y s t o p i a . T o t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e I n t e r n e t h a d b e e n a s t u n n i n g s u c c e s s . N o t o n l y w a s t h e r e n o p r o b l e m , t h i s " s o l u t i o n " h a s n ' t w o r k e d . T h e m a i n c o m p l a i n t c o n s u m e r s h a v e a b o u t t h e I n t e r n e t i s n o t a n d h a s n e v e r b e e n t h a t t h e i r I n t e r n e t s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r i s b l o c k i n g a c c e s s t o c o n t e n t . I t ' s t h a t t h e y d o n ' t h a v e a c c e s s a t a l l o r e n o u g h c o m p e t i t i o n b e t w e e n p r o v i d e r s . T h e 2 0 1 5 r e g u l a t i o n s h a v e t a k e n u s i n t h e o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n f r o m t h e s e c o n s u m e r p r e f e r e n c e s . U n d e r T i t l e I I , a n n u a l i n v e s t m e n t i n h i g h - s p e e d n e t w o r k s d e c l i n e d b y b i l l i o n s o f d o l l a r s - t h e f i r s t t i m e t h a t s u c h i n v e s t m e n t h a s g o n e d o w n o u t s i d e o f a r e c e s s i o n i n t h e I n t e r n e t e r a . A n d o u r r e c e n t B r o a d b a n d D e p l o y m e n t R e p o r t s h o w s t h a t t h e p a c e o f b o t h f i x e d a n d m o b i l e b r o a d b a n d d e p l o y m e n t d e c l i n e d d r a m a t i c a l l y i n t h e t w o y e a r s f o l l o w i n g t h e T i t l e I I O r d e r . R e t u r n i n g t o t h e l e g a l f r a m e w o r k t h a t g o v e r n e d t h e I n t e r n e t f r o m P r e s i d e n t C l i n t o n ' s p r o n o u n c e m e n t i n 1 9 9 6 u n t i l 2 0 1 5 i s n o t g o i n g t o d e s t r o y t h e I n t e r n e t . I t i s n o t g o i n g t o e n d t h e I n t e r n e t a s w e k n o w i t . I t i s n o t g o i n g t o u n d e r m i n e t h e f r e e e x c h a n g e o f i d e a s o r t h e f u n d a m e n t a l t r u t h t h a t t h e I n t e r n e t i s t h e g r e a t e s t f r e e m a r k e t s u c c e s s s t o r y o f o u r l i f e t i m e s . Page 2-The Honorable Peter A. DeFazio By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This means there will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways that companies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it's a freer and more open Internet. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency among ISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, and the failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure that consumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they develop new products and services. Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure that consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." But now we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulators guarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way they will be in the future. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be entered into the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Ajit V. Pai OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON April 20, 2018 The Honorable Pramila Jayapal U.S. House of Representatives 319 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congresswoman Jayapal: Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which reestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework that governed such practices for almost twenty years. At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the United States. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Internet economy became the envy of the world. Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the Internet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s to govern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the Internet had been a stunning success. Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition between providers. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions of dollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internet era. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order. Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton's pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or the fundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes. Page 2-The Honorable Pramila Jayapal By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This means there will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways that companies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it's a freer and more open Internet. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency among ISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, and the failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure that consumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they develop new products and services. Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure that consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." But now we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulators guarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way they will be in the future. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be entered into the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS CoMMissioN WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN April 20, 2018 The Honorable Raül M. Grijalva U.S. House of Representatives 1511 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Grijalva: Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which reestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework that governed such practices for almost twenty years. At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the United States. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Internet economy became the envy of the world. Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the Internet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1 930s to govern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the Internet had been a stunning success. Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition between providers. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions of dollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internet era. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order. Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton's pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or the fundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes. Page 2-The Honorable Raül M. Grijalva By returning to the light4ouch Title I framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This means there will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways that companies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it's a freer and more open Internet. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency among ISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, and the failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure that consumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they develop new products and services. Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure that consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." But now we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulators guarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way they will be in the future. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be entered into the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. 1) Sincerely, Ajit V. Pai OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON April 20, 2018 The Honorable Rick Nolan U.S. House of Representatives 2366 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Nolan: Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which reestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework that governed such practices for almost twenty years. At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the United States. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Internet economy became the envy of the world. Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the Internet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the l930s to govern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the Internet had been a stunning success. Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition between providers. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions of dollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internet era. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order. Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton's pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or the fundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes. Page 2-The Honorable Rick Nolan By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This means there will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways that companies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it's a freer and more open Internet. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency among ISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, and the failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure that consumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they develop new products and services. Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure that consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." But now we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulators guarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way they will be in the future. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be entered into the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, L\JIL V • I ai FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN April 20, 2018 The Honorable Robert C. Scott U.S. House of Representatives 1201 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Scott: Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which reestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework that governed such practices for almost twenty years. At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the United States. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Internet economy became the envy of the world. Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the Internet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 193 Os to govern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the Internet had been a stunning success. Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition between providers. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions of dollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internet era. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order. Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton's pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or the fundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes. Page 2-The Honorable Robert C. Scott By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This means there will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways that companies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it's a freer and more open Internet. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency among ISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, and the failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure that consumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they develop new products and services. Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure that consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." But now we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulators guarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way they will be in the future. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be entered into the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Ajit V. Pai OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON April 20, 2018 The Honorable Rohit Khanna U.S. House of Representatives 513 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Khanna: Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which reestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework that governed such practices for almost twenty years. At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the United States. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Internet economy became the envy of the world. Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the Internet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s to govern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the Internet had been a stunning success. Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition between providers. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions of dollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internet era. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order. Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton's pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or the fundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes. Page 2-The Honorable Rohit Khanna By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This means there will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways that companies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it's a freer and more open Internet. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency among ISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, and the failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure that consumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they develop new products and services. Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure that consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." But now we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulators guarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way they will be in the future. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be entered into the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, il VVA Ajit V. Pai OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON April 20, 2018 The Honorable Rosa DeLauro U.S. House of Representatives 2413 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congresswoman DeLauro: Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which reestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework that governed such practices for almost twenty years. At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the United States. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Internet economy became the envy of the world. Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the Internet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s to govern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the Internet had been a stunning success. Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition between providers. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions of dollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internet era. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order. Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton's pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or the fundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes. Page 2-The Honorable Rosa DeLauro By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This means there will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways that companies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it's a freer and more open Internet. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency among ISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, and the failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure that consumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they develop new products and services. Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure that consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." But now we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulators guarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way they will be in the future. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be entered into the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICAT1ONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON April 20, 2018 The Honorable Steve Cohen U.S. House of Representatives 2404 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Cohen: Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which reestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework that governed such practices for almost twenty years. At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the United States. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Internet economy became the envy of the world. Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the Internet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s to govern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the Internet had been a stunning success. Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition between providers. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions of dollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internet era. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order. Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton's pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or the fundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes. Page 2-The Honorable Steve Cohen By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This means there will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways that companies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it's a freer and more open Internet. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency among ISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, and the failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure that consumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they develop new products and services. Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure that consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." But now we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulators guarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way they will be in the future. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be entered into the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, I-' OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON April 20, 2018 The Honorable Suzanne Bonamici U.S. House of Representatives 439 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congresswoman Bonamici: Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which reestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework that governed such practices for almost twenty years. At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the United States. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Internet economy became the envy of the world. Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the Internet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s to govern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the Internet had been a stunning success. Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition between providers. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions of dollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internet era. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order. Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton's pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or the fundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes. Page 2-The Honorable Suzanne Bonamici By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This means there will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways that companies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it's a freer and more open Internet. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency among ISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, and the failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure that consumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they develop new products and services. Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure that consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." But now we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulators guarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way they will be in the future. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be entered into the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON April 20, 2018 The Honorable Tulsi Gabbard U.S. House of Representatives 1433 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congresswoman Gabbard: Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which reestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework that governed such practices for almost twenty years. At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the United States. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Internet economy became the envy of the world. Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the Internet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s to govern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the Internet had been a stunning success. Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition between providers. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions of dollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internet era. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order. Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton's pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or the fundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes. Page 2-The Honorable Tulsi Gabbard By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This means there will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways that companies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it's a freer and more open Internet. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency among ISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, and the failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure that consumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they develop new products and services. Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure that consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." But now we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulators guarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way they will be in the future. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be entered into the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, i1 Ajit V. Pai tic'