THE CHAIRMAN OFFICE OF preferences. regulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the Internet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s to returned to the light-touch regulatory framework that governed the Internet for almost twenty era. blocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition between competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or State years while reestablishing the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Internet wasn't broken in 2015. Internet economy became the envy of the world. providers. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer Internet had been a stunning success. management practices of Internet service providers. sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the United dollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internet Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and Internet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or the consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is govern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The United States Senate fundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes. Dear Senator Sanders: Washington, D.C. 20510 States. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew technology startups into global giants. America's 332 Dirksen Senate Office Building The Honorable Bernard Sanders And Our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobile Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaint Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton's Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Thank you for your letter regarding the Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions of FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS CoMMISsIoN We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the May 16, 2018 WASHINGTON Restoring Internet Freedom Order, Title II Order. which Page 2-The Honorable Bernard Sanders 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. Furthermore, the Commission is grateful to all commenters who engaged the legal and public policy questions presented in this rulemaking. These comments ensured that the Commission considered all important aspects of its proposal to reclassify broadband Internet access service as an "information service" and restore the light-touch regulatory framework that fostered a free and open Internet in the United States prior to 2015. To be sure, this proceeding carried the potential for advocates on either side to abuse the process to create an appearance of numerical advantage. But the Commission does not make policy decisions merely by tallying the comments on either side of a proposal; were it otherwise, agency decisions would require not Commissioners exercising reasoned judgment but calculators performing a simple count. Nor does the Commission attribute greater weight to comments based on the submitter's identity. Accordingly, the Commission has never burdened commenters with providing identity verification or expended the massive amount of resources necessary to verify commenters' identities. Rather than dwell on how well automated or form submissions reflect actual popular support, the Commission has instead focused on encouraging robust participation in its proceedings and ensuring that it has considered how the substance of submitted comments bear on the legal and public policy consequences of its actions. Despite any suggestion that the public comment process was somehow "flawed" by the alleged submission of comments under false names, any such activity did not affect the Commission's actual decision-making-that is, the agency's ability to review the record, respond to comments that raised significant issues, and make a reasoned judgment. I am not aware of any evidence to the contrary. Indeed, any reasonable review of the Order would demonstrate precisely the opposite-that the Commission painstakingly engaged with the voluminous public record in this proceeding (namely, the many substantive comments that meaningftilly grappled with the policy issues raised in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) in reaching its conclusions. To the extent you are concerned with non-substantive comments submitted under multiple different names that stated simply that the commenter supported or was Page 3-The Honorable Bernard Sanders opposed to the Title II classification without substantive explanation, as you can see in the Order, the agency did not rely on or cite any such comments. The Commission is staunchly committed to transparency and integrity in rulemaking proceedings, including in connection with the Restoring Internet Freedom proceeding. To that end, when individuals contacted the Commission to complain that a comment was falsely filed in their name, the Commission responded by inviting them to file a statement to that effect in the public record. In addition, members of the public had an opportunity to comment on the substance of the public draft released three weeks prior to the scheduled vote, pursuant to my transparency initiative. 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 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF May 16, 2018 THE CHAIRMAN The Honorable Catherine Cortez Masto United States Senate B4OA Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Cortez Masto: Thank you for your letter regarding theRestoring Internet Freedom Order, which returned to the light-touch regulatory framework that governed the Internet for almost twenty years while reestablishing the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers. 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 technology 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 Catherine Cortez Masto 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 1SPs 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. Furthermore, the Commission is grateful to all commenters who engaged the legal and public policy questions presented in this rulemaking. These comments ensured that the Commission considered all important aspects of its proposal to reclassify broadband Internet access service as an "information service" and restore the light-touch regulatory framework that fostered a free and open Internet in the United States prior to 2015. To he sure, this proceeding carried the potential for advocates on either side to abuse the process to create an appearance of numerical advantage. But the Commission does not make policy decisions merely by tallying the comments on either side of a proposal; were it otherwise, agency decisions would require not Commissioners exercising reasoned judgment but calculators performing a simple count. Nor does the Commission attribute greater weight to comments based on the submitter's identity. Accordingly, the Commission has never burdened commenters with providing identity verification or expended the massive amount of resources necessary to verify commenters' identities. Rather than dwell on how well automated or form submissions reflect actual popular support, the Commission has instead focused on encouraging robust participation in its proceedings and ensuring that it has considered how the substance of submitted comments bear on the legal and public policy consequences of its actions. Despite any suggestion that the public comment process was somehow "flawed" by the alleged submission of comments under false names, any such activity did not affect the Commission's actual decision-making-that is, the agency's ability to review the record, respond to comments that raised significant issues, and make a reasoned judgment. I am not aware of any evidence to the contrary. Indeed, any reasonable review of the Order would demonstrate precisely the opposite-that the Commission painstakingly engaged with the voluminous public record in this proceeding (namely, the many substantive comments that meaningfully grappled with the policy issues raised in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) in reaching its conclusions. To the extent you are concerned with non-substantive comments submitted under multiple different names that stated simply that the commenter supported or was Page 3-The Honorable Catherine Cortez Masto opposed to the Title II classification without substantive explanation, as you can see in the Order, the agency did not rely on or cite any such comments. The Commission is staunchly committed to transparency and integrity in rulemaking proceedings, including in connection with the Restoring Internet Freedom proceeding. To that end, when individuals contacted the Commission to complain that a comment was falsely filed in their name, the Commission responded by inviting them to file a statement to that effect in the public record. In addition, members of the public had an opportunity to comment on the substance of the public draft released three weeks prior to the scheduled vote, pursuant to my transparency initiative. 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 May 16, 2018 The Honorable Chris Van Hollen United States Senate B4OC Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Van Hollen: Thank you for your letter regarding theRestoring Internet Freedom Order, which returned to the light-touch regulatory framework that governed the Internet for almost twenty years while reestablishing the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers. 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 technology 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. lJnder 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 Chris Van Hollen 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. Furthermore, the Commission is grateful to all commenters who engaged the legal and public policy questions presented in this rulemaking. These comments ensured that the Commission considered all important aspects of its proposal to reclassify broadband Internet access service as an "information service" and restore the light-touch regulatory framework that fostered a free and open Internet in the United States prior to 2015. To be sure, this proceeding carried the potential for advocates on either side to abuse the process to create an appearance of numerical advantage. But the Commission does not make policy decisions merely by tallying the comments on either side of a proposal; were it otherwise, agency decisions would require not Commissioners exercising reasoned judgment but calculators performing a simple count. Nor does the Commission attribute greater weight to comments based on the submitter's identity. Accordingly, the Commission has never burdened commenters with providing identity verification or expended the massive amount of resources necessary to verify commenters' identities. Rather than dwell on how well automated or form submissions reflect actual popular support, the Commission has instead focused on encouraging robust participation in its proceedings and ensuring that it has considered how the substance of submitted comments bear on the legal and public policy consequences of its actions. Despite any suggestion that the public comment process was somehow "flawed" by the alleged submission of comments under false names, any such activity did not affect the Commission's actual decision-making-that is, the agency's ability to review the record, respond to comments that raised significant issues, and make a reasoned judgment. I am not aware of any evidence to the contrary. Indeed, any reasonable review of the Order would demonstrate precisely the opposite-that the Commission painstakingly engaged with the voluminous public record in this proceeding (namely, the many substantive comments that meaningfully grappled with the policy issues raised in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) in reaching its conclusions. To the extent you are concerned with non-substantive comments submitted under multiple different names that stated simply that the commenter supported or was Page 3-The Honorable Chris Van Hollen opposed to the Title II classification without substantive explanation, as you can see in the Order, the agency did not rely on or cite any such comments. The Commission is staunchly committed to transparency and integrity in rulemaking proceedings, including in connection with the Restoring Internet Freedom proceeding. To that end, when individuals contacted the Commission to complain that a comment was falsely filed in their name, the Commission responded by inviting them to file a statement to that effect in the public record. In addition, members of the public had an opportunity to comment on the substance of the public draft released three weeks prior to the scheduled vote, pursuant to my transparency initiative. 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 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF May 16, 2018 THE CHAIRMAN The Honorable Edward J. Markey United States Senate 255 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Markey: Thank you for your letter regarding theRestoring Internet Freedom Order, which returned to the light-touch regulatory framework that governed the Internet for almost twenty years while reestablishing the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers. 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 technology 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 Edward J. Markey 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. Furthermore, the Commission is grateful to all commenters who engaged the legal and public policy questions presented in this rulemaking. These comments ensured that the Commission considered all important aspects of its proposal to reclassify broadband Internet access service as an "information service" and restore the light-touch regulatory framework that fostered a free and open Internet in the United States prior to 2015. To be sure, this proceeding carried the potential for advocates on either side to abuse the process to create an appearance of numerical advantage. But the Commission does not make policy decisions merely by tallying the comments on either side of a proposal; were it otherwise, agency decisions would require not Commissioners exercising reasoned judgment but calculators performing a simple count. Nor does the Commission attribute greater weight to comments based on the submitter's identity. Accordingly, the Commission has never burdened commenters with providing identity verification or expended the massive amount of resources necessary to verify commenters' identities. Rather than dwell on how well automated or form submissions reflect actual popular support, the Commission has instead focused on encouraging robust participation in its proceedings and ensuring that it has considered how the substance of submitted comments bear on the legal and public policy consequences of its actions. Despite any suggestion that the public comment process was somehow "flawed" by the alleged submission of comments under false names, any such activity did not affect the Commission's actual decision-making-that is, the agency's ability to review the record, respond to comments that raised significant issues, and make a reasoned judgment. I am not aware of any evidence to the contrary. Indeed, any reasonable review of the Order would demonstrate precisely the opposite-that the Commission painstakingly engaged with the voluminous public record in this proceeding (namely, the many substantive comments that meaningfully grappled with the policy issues raised in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) in reaching its conclusions. To the extent you are concerned with non-substantive comments submitted under multiple different names that stated simply that the commenter supported or was Page 3-The Honorable Edward J. Markey opposed to the Title II classification without substantive explanation, as you can see in the Order, the agency did not rely on or cite any such comments. The Commission is staunchly committed to transparency and integrity in rulemaking proceedings, including in connection with the Restoring Internet Freedom proceeding. To that end, when individuals contacted the Commission to complain that a comment was falsely filed in their name, the Commission responded by inviting them to file a statement to that effect in the public record, In addition, members of the public had an opportunity to comment on the substance of the public draft released three weeks prior to the scheduled vote, pursuant to my transparency initiative. 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 May 16, 2018 THE CHAIRMAN The Honorable Elizabeth Warren United States Senate 317 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Warren: Thank you for your letter regarding theRestoring Internet Freedom Order, which returned to the light-touch regulatory framework that governed the Internet for almost twenty years while reestablishing the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers. 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 technology 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 lnternet 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 Elizabeth Warren 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. Furthermore, the Commission is grateful to all commenters who engaged the legal and public policy questions presented in this rulemaking. These comments ensured that the Commission considered all important aspects of its proposal to reclassify broadband Internet access service as an "information service" and restore the light-touch regulatory framework that fostered a free and open Internet in the United States prior to 2015. To be sure, this proceeding carried the potential for advocates on either side to abuse the process to create an appearance of numerical advantage. But the Commission does not make policy decisions merely by tallying the comments on either side of a proposal; were it otherwise, agency decisions would require not Commissioners exercising reasoned judgment but calculators performing a simple count. Nor does the Commission attribute greater weight to comments based on the submitter's identity. Accordingly, the Commission has never burdened commenters with providing identity verification or expended the massive amount of resources necessary to verify commenters' identities. Rather than dwell on how well automated or form submissions reflect actual popular support, the Commission has instead focused on encouraging robust participation in its proceedings and ensuring that it has considered how the substance of submitted comments bear on the legal and public policy consequences of its actions. Despite any suggestion that the public comment process was somehow "flawed" by the alleged submission of comments under false names, any such activity did not affect the Commission's actual decision-making-that is, the agency's ability to review the record, respond to comments that raised significant issues, and make a reasoned judgment. I am not aware of any evidence to the contrary. Indeed, any reasonable review of the Order would demonstrate precisely the opposite-that the Commission painstakingly engaged with the voluminous public record in this proceeding (namely, the many substantive comments that meaningfully grappled with the policy issues raised in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) in reaching its conclusions. To the extent you are concerned with non-substantive comments submitted under multiple different names that stated simply that the commenter supported or was Page 3-The Honorable Elizabeth Warren opposed to the Title II classification without substantive explanation, as you can see in the Order, the agency did not rely on or cite any such comments. The Commission is staunchly committed to transparency and integrity in rulemaking proceedings, including in connection with the Restoring Internet Freedom proceeding. To that end, when individuals contacted the Commission to complain that a comment was falsely filed in their name, the Commission responded by inviting them to file a statement to that effect in the public record. In addition, members of the public had an opportunity to comment on the substance of the public draft released three weeks prior to the scheduled vote, pursuant to my transparency initiative. 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, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS CoMMIsSIoN WASHINGTON OFFICE OF May 16, 2018 THE CHAIRMAN The Honorable Jack Reed United States Senate 728 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Reed: Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which returned to the light-touch regulatory framework that governed the Internet for almost twenty years while reestablishing the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers. 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 regulalion. 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 technology 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 Jack Reed 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. Furthermore, the Commission is grateful to all commenters who engaged the legal and public policy questions presented in this rulemaking. These comments ensured that the Commission considered all important aspects of its proposal to reclassify broadband Internet access service as an "information service" and restore the light-touch regulatory framework that fostered a free and open Internet in the United States prior to 2015. To be sure, this proceeding carried the potential for advocates on either side to abuse the process to create an appearance of numerical advantage. But the Commission does not make policy decisions merely by tallying the comments on either side of a proposal; were it otherwise, agency decisions would require not Commissioners exercising reasoned judgment but calculators performing a simple count. Nor does the Commission attribute greater weight to comments based on the submitter's identity. Accordingly, the Commission has never burdened commenters with providing identity verification or expended the massive amount of resources necessary to verify commenters' identities. Rather than dwell on how well automated or form submissions reflect actual popular support, the Commission has instead focused on encouraging robust participation in its proceedings and ensuring that it has considered how the substance of submitted comments bear on the legal and public policy consequences of its actions. Despite any suggestion that the public comment process was somehow "flawed" by the alleged submission of comments under false names, any such activity did not affect the Commission's actual decision-making-that is, the agency's ability to review the record, respond to comments that raised significant issues, and make a reasoned judgment. I am not aware of any evidence to the contrary. Indeed, any reasonable review of theOrder would demonstrate precisely the opposite-that the Commission painstakingly engaged with the voluminous public record in this proceeding (namely, the many substantive comments that meaningfully grappled with the policy issues raised in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) in reaching its conclusions. To the extent you are concerned with non-substantive comments submitted under multiple different names that stated simply that the commenter supported or was public record. In addition, members of the public had an opportunity to comment on the they will be in the future. end, when individuals contacted the Commission to complain that a comment was falsely filed in guarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way transparency initiative. their name, the Commission responded by inviting them to file a statement to that effect in the Page 3-The Honorable Jack Reed proceedings, including in coimection with the opposed to the Title II classification without substantive explanation, as you can see in the substance of the public draft released three weeks prior to the scheduled vote, pursuant to my into the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulators Order, the agency did not rely on or cite any such comments. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be entered The Commission is staunchly committed to transparency and integrity in rulemaking In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will Ajit V. Pai Sincerely, Restoring Internet Freedom proceeding. To that THE CHAIRMAN OFFICE OF preferences. pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the blocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition between competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet . . . unfettered by Federal or State years while reestablishing the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the providers. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer Internet had been a stunning success. regulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private management practices of Internet service providers. dollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internet Internet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s to consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and returned to the light-touch regulatory framework that governed the Internet for almost twenty Internet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or the era. govern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The Internet economy became the envy of the world. United States Senate fundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes. Internet wasn't broken in 2015. Dear Senator Gillibrand: 478 Russell Senate Office Building sector invested over S1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the United States. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew technology startups into global giants. America's The Honorable Kirsten Gillibrand Washington, D.C. 20510 And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobile Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaint At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Thank you for your letter regarding the Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton's Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions of FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the May 16, 2018 WASHINGTON Restoring Internet Freedom Order, Title II Order. which Page 2-The Honorable Kirsten Gillibrand 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 1SPs 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. Furthermore, the Commission is grateful to all commenters who engaged the legal and public policy questions presented in this rulemaking. These comments ensured that the Commission considered all important aspects of its proposal to reclassify broadband Internet access service as an "information service" and restore the light-touch regulatory framework that fostered a free and open Internet in the United States prior to 2015. To be sure, this proceeding carried the potential for advocates on either side to abuse the process to create an appearance of numerical advantage. But the Commission does not make policy decisions merely by tallying the comments on either side of a proposal; were it otherwise, agency decisions would require not Commissioners exercising reasoned judgment but calculators performing a simple count. Nor does the Commission attribute greater weight to comments based on the submitter's identity. Accordingly, the Commission has never burdened commenters with providing identity verification or expended the massive amount of resources necessary to verify commenters' identities. Rather than dwell on how well automated or form submissions reflect actual popular support, the Commission has instead focused on encouraging robust participation in its proceedings and ensuring that it has considered how the substance of submitted comments bear on the legal and public policy consequences of its actions. Despite any suggestion that the public comment process was somehow "flawed" by the alleged submission of comments under false names, any such activity did not affect the Commission's actual decision-making-that is, the agency's ability to review the record, respond to comments that raised significant issues, and make a reasoned judgment. I am not aware of any evidence to the contrary. Indeed, any reasonable review of theOrder would demonstrate precisely the opposite-that the Commission painstakingly engaged with the voluminous public record in this proceeding (namely, the many substantive comments that meaningfully grappled with the policy issues raised in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) in reaching its conclusions. To the extent you are concerned with non-substantive comments submitted under multiple different names that stated simply that the commenter supported or was Page 3-The Honorable Kirsten Gillibrand opposed to the Title II classification without substantive explanation, as you can see in the Order, the agency did not rely on or cite any such comments. The Commission is staunchly committed to transparency and integrity in rulemaking proceedings, including in connection with the Restoring Internet Freedom proceeding. To that end, when individuals contacted the Commission to complain that a comment was falsely filed in their name, the Commission responded by inviting them to file a statement to that effect in the public record. In addition, members of the public had an opportunity to comment on the substance of the public draft released three weeks prior to the scheduled vote, pursuant to my transparency initiative. 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, TV y AjitV.Pai FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN May 16, 2018 The Honorable Mazie K. Hirono United States Senate 330 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Hirono: Thank you for your letter regarding theRestoring Internet Freedom Order, which returned to the light-touch regulatory framework that governed the Internet for almost twenty years while reestablishing the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers. 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 technology 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 Mazie K. Hirono 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. Furthermore, the Commission is grateful to all commenters who engaged the legal and public policy questions presented in this rulemaking. These comments ensured that the Commission considered all important aspects of its proposal to reclassify broadband Internet access service as an "information service" and restore the light-touch regulatory framework that fostered a free and open Internet in the United States prior to 2015. To be sure, this proceeding carried the potential for advocates on either side to abuse the process to create an appearance of numerica' advantage. But the Commission does not make policy decisions merely by tallying the comments on either side of a proposal; were it otherwise, agency decisions would require not Commissioners exercising reasoned judgment but calculators performing a simple count. Nor does the Commission attribute greater weight to comments based on the submitter's identity. Accordingly, the Commission has never burdened commenters with providing identity verification or expended the massive amount of resources necessary to verify commenters' identities. Rather than dwell on how well automated or form submissions reflect actual popular support, the Commission has instead focused on encouraging robust participation in its proceedings and ensuring that it has considered how the substance of submitted comments bear on the legal and public policy consequences of its actions. Despite any suggestion that the public comment process was somehow "flawed" by the alleged submission of comments under false names, any such activity did not affect the Commission's actual decision-making-that is, the agency's ability to review the record, respond to comments that raised significant issues, and make a reasoned judgment. I am not aware of any evidence to the contrary. Indeed, any reasonable review of the Order would demonstrate precisely the opposite-that the Commission painstakingly engaged with the voluminous public record in this proceeding (namely, the many substantive comments that meaningfully grappled with the policy issues raised in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) in reaching its conclusions. To the extent you are concerned with non-substantive comments submitted under multiple different names that stated simply that the commenter supported or was Page 3-The Honorable Mazie K. Hirono opposed to the Title II classification without substantive explanation, as you can see in the Order, the agency did not rely on or cite any such comments. The Commission is staunchly committed to transparency and integrity in rulemaking proceedings, including in connection with the Restoring Internet Freedom proceeding. To that end, when individuals contacted the Commission to complain that a comment was falsely filed in their name, the Commission responded by inviting them to file a statement to that effect in the public record. In addition, members of the public had an opportunity to comment on the substance of the public draft released three weeks prior to the scheduled vote, pursuant to my transparency initiative. 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 v Ajit V. Pai THE CHAIRMAN OFFICE OF pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the providers. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. blocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition between Internet wasn't broken in 2015. Internet economy became the envy of the world. years while reestablishing the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the regulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private management practices of Internet service providers. dollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internet Internet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the I 930s to consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is govern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The returned to the light-touch regulatory framework that governed the Internet for almost twenty Internet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or the era. competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet... unfettered by Federal or State fundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes. Internet had been a stunning success. 437 Russell Senate Office Building sector invested over States. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew technology startups into global giants. America's Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and Dear Senator Leahy: Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy United States Senate And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobile Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaint Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton's At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the Thank you for your letter regarding the Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions of $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the United FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the May 16, 2018 WASHINGTON Restoring Internet Freedom Order, Title II Order. which Page 2-The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy 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. Furthermore, the Commission is grateful to all commenters who engaged the legal and public policy questions presented in this rulemaking. These comments ensured that the Commission considered all important aspects of its proposal to reclassify broadband Internet access service as an "information service" and restore the light-touch regulatory framework that fostered a free and open Internet in the United States prior to 2015. To be sure, this proceeding carried the potential for advocates on either side to abuse the process to create an appearance of numerical advantage. But the Commission does not make policy decisions merely by tallying the comments on either side of a proposal; were it otherwise, agency decisions would require not Commissioners exercising reasoned judgment but calculators performing a simple count. Nor does the Commission attribute greater weight to comments based on the submitter's identity. Accordingly, the Commission has never burdened commenters with providing identity verification or expended the massive amount of resources necessary to verify commenters' identities. Rather than dwell on how well automated or form submissions reflect actual popular support, the Commission has instead focused on encouraging robust participation in its proceedings and ensuring that it has considered how the substance of submitted comments bear on the legal and public policy consequences of its actions. Despite any suggestion that the public comment process was somehow "flawed" by the alleged submission of comments under false names, any such activity did not affect the Commission's actual decision-making-that is, the agency's ability to review the record, respond to comments that raised significant issues, and make a reasoned judgment. I am not aware of any evidence to the contrary. Indeed, any reasonable review of the Order would demonstrate precisely the opposite-that the Commission painstakingly engaged with the voluminous public record in this proceeding (namely, the many substantive comments that meaningfully grappled with the policy issues raised in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) in reaching its conclusions. To the extent you are concerned with non-substantive comments submitted under multiple different names that stated simply that the commenter supported or was Page 3-The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy opposed to the Title II classification without substantive explanation, as you can see in the Order, the agency did not rely on or cite any such comments. The Commission is staunchly committed to transparency and integrity in rulemaking proceedings, including in connection with the Restoring Internet Freedom proceeding. To that end, when individuals contacted the Commission to complain that a comment was falsely filed in their name, the Commission responded by inviting them to file a statement to that effect in the public record. In addition, members of the public had an opportunity to comment on the substance of the public draft released three weeks prior to the scheduled vote, pursuant to my transparency initiative. 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 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF May 16, 2018 THE CHAIRMAN The Honorable Richard Blumenthal United States Senate 706 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Blumenthal: Thank you for your letter regarding theRestoring Internet Freedom Order, which returned to the light-touch regulatory framework that governed the Internet for almost twenty years while reestablishing the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers. 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 technology 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 Richard Blumenthal 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. Furthermore, the Commission is grateful to all commenters who engaged the legal and public policy questions presented in this rulemaking. These comments ensured that the Commission considered all important aspects of its proposal to reclassify broadband Internet access service as an "information service" and restore the light-touch regulatory framework that fostered a free and open Internet in the United States prior to 2015. To be sure, this proceeding carried the potential for advocates on either side to abuse the process to create an appearance of numerical advantage. But the Commission does not make policy decisions merely by tallying the comments on either side of a proposal; were it otherwise, agency decisions would require not Commissioners exercising reasoned judgment but calculators performing a simple count. Nor does the Commission attribute greater weight to comments based on the submitter's identity. Accordingly, the Commission has never burdened commenters with providing identity verification or expended the massive amount of resources necessary to verify commenters' identities. Rather than dwell on how well automated or form submissions reflect actual popular support. the Commission has instead focused on encouraging robust participation in its proceedings and ensuring that it has considered how the substance of submitted comments bear on the legal and public policy consequences of its actions. Despite any suggestion that the public comment process was somehow "flawed" by the alleged submission of comments under false names, any such activity did not affect the Commission's actual decision-making-that is, the agency's ability to review the record, respond to comments that raised significant issues, and make a reasoned judgment. I am not aware of any evidence to the contrary. Indeed, any reasonable review of theOrder would demonstrate precisely the opposite-that the Commission painstakingly engaged with the voluminous public record in this proceeding (namely, the many substantive comments that meaningfully grappled with the policy issues raised in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) in reaching its conclusions. To the extent you are concerned with non-substantive comments submitted under multiple different names that stated simply that the commenter supported or was Page 3-The Honorable Richard Blumenthal opposed to the Title II classification without substantive explanation, as you can see in the Order, the agency did not rely on or cite any such comments. The Commission is staunchly committed to transparency and integrity in rulemaking proceedings, including in connection with the Restoring Internet Freedom proceeding. To that end, when individuals contacted the Commission to complain that a comment was falsely filed in their name, the Commission responded by inviting them to file a statement to that effect in the public record. In addition, members of the public had an opportunity to comment on the substance of the public draft released three weeks prior to the scheduled vote, pursuant to my transparency initiative. 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 Ajit V. Pai FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF May 16, 2018 THE CHAIRMAN The Honorable Ron Wyden United States Senate 221 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Wyden: Thank you for your letter regarding theRestoring Internet Freedom Order, which returned to the light-touch regulatory framework that governed the Internet for almost twenty years while reestablishing the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers. 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 technology 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. there will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways that new products and services. process to create an appearance of numerical advantage. But the Commission does not make the failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure that Page 2-The Honorable Ron Wyden based on the submitter's identity. Accordingly, the Commission has never burdened commenters public policy questions presented in this rulemaking. These comments ensured that the now we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the consumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they develop ISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, and companies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it's promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks, performing a simple count. Nor does the Commission attribute greater weight to comments access service as an "information service" and restore the light-touch regulatory framework that its jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." But a freer and more open Internet. especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 50. This means reflect actual popular support, the Commission has instead focused on encouraging robust policy decisions merely by tallying the comments on either side of a proposal; were it otherwise, fostered a free and open Internet in the United States prior to 2015. agency decisions would require not Commissioners exercising reasoned judgment but calculators Commission considered all important aspects of its proposal to reclassify broadband Internet verify commenters' identities. Rather than dwell on how well automated or form submissions participation in its proceedings and ensuring that it has considered how the substance of respond to comments that raised significant issues, and make a reasoned judgment. I am not alleged submission of comments under false names, any such activity did not affect the submitted comments bear on the legal and public policy consequences of its actions. reaching its conclusions. To the extent you are concerned with non-substantive comments voluminous public record in this proceeding (namely, the many substantive comments that aware of any evidence to the contrary. Indeed, any reasonable review of the with providing identity verification or expended the massive amount of resources necessary to meaningfully grappled with the policy issues raised in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) in demonstrate precisely the opposite-that the Commission painstakingly engaged with the Commission's actual decision-making-that is, the agency's ability to review the record, submitted under multiple different names that stated simply that the commenter supported or was Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure that The By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers and To be sure, this proceeding carried the potential for advocates on either side to abuse the Furthermore, the Commission is grateful to all commenters who engaged the legal and Despite any suggestion that the public comment process was somehow "flawed" by the Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency among Title II Order stripped the FTC of Order would their name, the Commission responded by inviting them to file a statement to that effect in the proceedings, including in connection with the Page 3-The Honorable Ron Wyden transparency initiative. they will be in the future. public record. In addition, members of the public had an opportunity to comment on the end, when individuals contacted the Commission to complain that a comment was falsely filed in opposed to the Title II classification without substantive explanation, as you can see in the guarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way substance of the public draft released three weeks prior to the scheduled vote, pursuant to my Order, into the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulators the agency did not rely on or cite any such comments. The Commission is staunchly committed to transparency and integrity in rulemaking I appreciate your interest in this matter, Your views are important and will be entered In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will Ajit V. Pai Sincerely, Restoring Internet Freedom proceeding. To that FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF May 16, 2018 THE CHAIRMAN The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse United States Senate 530 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Whitehouse: Thank you for your letter regarding theRestoring internet Freedom Order, which returned to the light-touch regulatory framework that governed the Internet for almost twenty years while reestablishing the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers. 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 technology 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 1 996 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 Sheldon Whitehouse 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. Furthermore, the Commission is grateful to all commenters who engaged the legal and public policy questions presented in this rulemaking. These comments ensured that the Commission considered all important aspects of its proposal to reclassify broadband Internet access service as an "information service" and restore the light-touch regulatory framework that fostered a free and open Internet in the United States prior to 2015. To be sure, this proceeding carried the potential for advocates on either side to abuse the process to create an appearance of numerical advantage. But the Commission does not make policy decisions merely by tallying the comments on either side of a proposal; were it otherwise, agency decisions would require not Commissioners exercising reasoned judgment but calculators performing a simple count. Nor does the Commission attribute greater weight to comments based on the submitter's identity. Accordingly, the Commission has never burdened commenters with providing identity verification or expended the massive amount of resources necessary to verify commenters' identities. Rather than dwell on how well automated or form submissions reflect actual popular support. the Commission has instead focused on encouraging robust participation in its proceedings and ensuring that it has considered how the substance of submitted comments bear on the legal and public policy consequences of its actions. Despite any suggestion that the public comment process was somehow "flawed" by the alleged submission of comments under false names, any such activity did not affect the Commission's actual decision-making-that is, the agency's ability to review the record, respond to comments that raised significant issues, and make a reasoned judgment. I am not aware of any evidence to the contrary. Indeed, any reasonable review of theOrder would demonstrate precisely the opposite-that the Commission painstakingly engaged with the voluminous public record in this proceeding (namely, the many substantive comments that meaningfully grappled with the policy issues raised in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) in reaching its conclusions. To the extent you are concerned with non-substantive comments submitted under multiple different names that stated simply that the commenter supported or was Page 3-The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse opposed to the Title II classification without substantive explanation, as you can see in the Order, the agency did not rely on or cite any such comments. The Commission is staunchly committed to transparency and integrity in rulemaking proceedings, including in connection with the Restoring Internet Freedom proceeding. To that end, when individuals contacted the Commission to complain that a comment was falsely filed in their name, the Commission responded by inviting them to file a statement to that effect in the public record. In addition, members of the public had an opportunity to comment on the substance of the public drafi released three weeks prior to the scheduled vote, pursuant to my transparency initiative. 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 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF May 16, 2018 THE CHAIRMAN The Honorable Sherrod Brown United States Senate 713 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Brown: Thank you for your letter regarding theRestoring Internet Freedom Order, which returned to the light-touch regulatory framework that governed the Internet for almost twenty years while reestablishing the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers. 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 technology 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 Sherrod Brown 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. Furthermore, the Commission is grateful to all commenters who engaged the legal and public policy questions presented in this rulemaking. These comments ensured that the Commission considered all important aspects of its proposal to reclassify broadband Internet access service as an "information service" and restore the light-touch regulatory framework that fostered a free and open Internet in the United States prior to 2015. To be sure, this proceeding carried the potential for advocates on either side to abuse the process to create an appearance of numerical advantage. But the Commission does not make policy decisions merely by tallying the comments on either side of a proposal; were it otherwise, agency decisions would require not Commissioners exercising reasoned judgment but calculators performing a simple count. Nor does the Commission attribute greater weight to comments based on the submitter's identity. Accordingly, the Commission has never burdened commenters with providing identity verification or expended the massive amount of resources necessary to verify commenters' identities. Rather than dwell on how well automated or form submissions reflect actual popular support, the Commission has instead focused on encouraging robust participation in its proceedings and ensuring that it has considered how the substance of submitted comments bear on the legal and public policy consequences of its actions. Despite any suggestion that the public comment process was somehow "flawed" by the alleged submission of comments under false names, any such activity did not affect the Commission's actual decision-making-that is, the agency's ability to review the record, respond to comments that raised significant issues, and make a reasoned judgment. I am not aware of any evidence to the contrary. Indeed, any reasonable review of theOrder would demonstrate precisely the opposite-that the Commission painstakingly engaged with the voluminous public record in this proceeding (namely, the many substantive comments that meaningfully grappled with the policy issues raised in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) in reaching its conclusions. To the extent you are concerned with non-substantive comments submitted under multiple different names that stated simply that the commenter supported or was their name, the Commission responded by inviting them to file a statement to that effect in the Page 3-The Honorable Sherrod Brown they will be in the future. public record. In addition, members of the public had an opportunity to comment on the proceedings, including in connection with the end, when individuals contacted the Commission to complain that a comment was falsely filed in guarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way transparency initiative. opposed to the Title II classification without substantive explanation, as you can see in the substance of the public draft released three weeks prior to the scheduled vote, pursuant to my into the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Order, still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulators the agency did not rely on or cite any such comments. The Commission is staunchly committed to transparency and integrity in rulemaking In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be entered Restoring Internet Freedom proceeding. To that FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF May 16, 2018 THE CHAIRMAN The Honorable Tammy Baldwin United States Senate 717 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Baldwin: Thank you for your letter regarding theRestoring Internet Freedom Order, which returned to the light-touch regulatory framework that governed the Internet for almost twenty years while reestablishing the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers. 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 technology 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 Tammy Baldwin 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. Furthermore, the Commission is grateful to all commenters who engaged the legal and public policy questions presented in this rulemaking. These comments ensured that the Commission considered all important aspects of its proposal to reclassify broadband Internet access service as an "information service" and restore the light-touch regulatory framework that fostered a free and open Internet in the United States prior to 2015. To be sure, this proceeding carried the potential for advocates on either side to abuse the process to create an appearance of numerical advantage. But the Commission does not make policy decisions merely by tallying the comments on either side of a proposal; were it otherwise, agency decisions would require not Commissioners exercising reasoned judgment but calculators performing a simple count. Nor does the Commission attribute greater weight to comments based on the submitter's identity. Accordingly, the Commission has never burdened commenters with providing identity verification or expended the massive amount of resources necessary to verify commenters' identities. Rather than dwell on how well automated or form submissions reflect actual popular support, the Commission has instead focused on encouraging robust participation in its proceedings and ensuring that it has considered how the substance of submitted comments bear on the legal and public policy consequences of its actions. Despite any suggestion that the public comment process was somehow "flawed" by the alleged submission of comments under false names, any such activity did not affect the Commission's actual decision-making-that is, the agency's ability to review the record, respond to comments that raised significant issues, and make a reasoned judgment. I am not aware of any evidence to the contrary. Indeed, any reasonable review of theOrder would demonstrate precisely the opposite-that the Commission painstakingly engaged with the voluminous public record in this proceeding (namely, the many substantive comments that meaningfully grappled with the policy issues raised in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) in reaching its conclusions. To the extent you are concerned with non-substantive comments submitted under multiple different names that stated simply that the commenter supported or was Page 3-The Honorable Tammy Baldwin opposed to the Title II classification without substantive explanation, as you can see in the Order, the agency did not rely on or cite any such comments. The Commission is staunchly committed to transparency and integrity in rulemaking proceedings, including in connection with the Restoring Internet Freedom proceeding. To that end, when individuals contacted the Commission to complain that a comment was falsely filed in their name, the Commission responded by inviting them to file a statement to that effect in the public record. In addition, members of the public had an opportunity to comment on the substance of the public draft released three weeks prior to the scheduled vote, pursuant to my transparency initiative. 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,