FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN August 3,2018 The Honorable Jeff Fortenherry U.S. House of Representatives 1514 Longworth I-louse Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Fortenberry: Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which reestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management practices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework that governed such practices for almost twenty years. But first, thank you for the kind words you offered to me and my family. Given recent events, I have a much better appreciation for the similar situations others, especially elected officials like you, have to deal with in public service. I agree with you that this kind of ruckus does not promote a constructive discussion on public policy issues, but instead detracts from it. Al its best, American public discourse pairs passion with civility, which enables us to make better informed decisions and, if we disagree, to do so agreeably. I also agree with you that it is important that the government maintain open and creative space for the ongoing use and development of the Internet. Indeed, at the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet . . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the United States. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Internet economy became the envy of the world. Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the Internet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s to govern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the Internet had been a stunning success. Not only was there no problem, this "solution" didn't work. 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 took 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 went down outside of a recession in the Internet era. Page 2-The Honorable Jeff Fortenberry 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 has not destroyed and is not going to destroy the Internet. It has not ended and is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It has not undermined and 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. 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 have reestablished 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 have put our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulators guarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way they are now and will be in the future. I appreciate your interest in this matter. And thank you for your public service on behalf of the residents of the First District of Nebraska. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Ajit V. Pai