Federal Communications Commission	FCC 24-52


STATEMENT OF
CHAIRWOMAN JESSICA ROSENWORCEL

Re: 	Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet, WC Docket No. 23-320; Restoring Internet Freedom, WC Docket 17-108; Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order, Order, and Order on Reconsideration (April 25, 2024)

Four years ago the pandemic changed life as we know it.  We were told to stay home, hunker down, and live online.  So much of work, school, and healthcare migrated to the internet.  If we wanted to engage with the world, we needed to do it all through a broadband connection.  
It became clear that no matter who you are or where you live, you need broadband to have a fair shot at digital age success.  It went from nice-to-have to need-to-have for everyone, everywhere.  Broadband is now an essential service.  Essential services—the ones we count on in every aspect of modern life—have some basic oversight.  
So let’s be clear about what we are doing today.  This agency—the Nation’s leading communications authority—believes every consumer deserves internet access that is fast, open, and fair.  That is why we determine that the Federal Communications Commission should be able to assist consumers and take action when it comes to the most important communications of our time—and that’s broadband.  
This is common sense.  But in a world where up is down and down is up, the last FCC threw this authority away and decided broadband needed no supervision.  As a result, it tossed out net neutrality policies grounded in Title II of the Communications Act that have deep origins in communications law and history.  
These net neutrality policies ensured you can go where you want and do what you want online without your broadband provider making choices for you.  They made clear your broadband provider should not have the right to block websites, slow services, or censor online content.  These policies were court tested and approved.  They were wildly popular.  In fact, studies show that 80 percent of the public support the FCC’s net neutrality policies and opposed their repeal.
Now for a plot twist.  After the last FCC took away these policies despite broad public opposition, a curious thing happened.  When Washington stepped out, California rode in with its own open internet regime.  Other states, too.  All in all, nearly a dozen put net neutrality rules into state law, executive orders, and contracting policies.  So in effect, we have net neutrality policies that providers are abiding by right now in this country—they are just coming from Sacramento and places like it.  
I think in a modern digital economy we should have a national net neutrality policy and make clear the Nation’s expert on communications has the ability to act when it comes to broadband.  This is good for consumers, good for public safety, and good for national security.  And that is why we are taking this action today under Title II of the Communications Act.  
Let’s start with consumers.  They spoke out in droves when this agency repealed net neutrality.  They jammed our in-boxes, overwhelmed our online comment system, and clogged our phone lines.  They clamored to get net neutrality back.  In the intervening years, they have not stopped.  Thousands of consumers write us month after month seeking to have this agency help them navigate issues with their broadband service.  Yet, as a result of the last FCC throwing these policies out and backing away from broadband, we can only take action when they have issues with their long distance voice service.  There is nothing modern about that.  
Consumers have made clear to us they do not want their broadband provider cutting sweetheart deals, with fast lanes for some services and slow lanes for others.  They do not want their providers engaging in blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization.  And if they have problems they expect the Nation’s expert authority on communications to be able to respond.  Because we put national net neutrality rules back on the books, we fix that today.
Let’s talk about public safety.  When there is a network outage, all eyes turn to the FCC.  But because the last FCC backed away from basic broadband oversight, the agency has only been able to gather outage data when long distance voice service fails, but cannot do the same for broadband.  In a modern digital economy, it’s crazy that we cannot collect mandatory data about broadband outages.  Because it makes it harder to identify patterns of internet failure, fix them when they occur, and put in place policies to make our networks more resilient across the board.  
The importance of public safety and broadband was driven home to me earlier this month when I visited the Santa Clara County Fire Department.  They told me how when they were responding to an emergency, they discovered that the internet connection in one of their command vehicles was being throttled, compromising their ability to keep connected and fight fires.  They want net neutrality rules back.  They could not fathom that the last FCC gave up the ability to even investigate what happened, let alone help them or any other consumer having problems with their broadband connection.  They’re right—and we fix it today.
Let’s talk about national security.  While this agency has taken a series of actions to reduce our dependence on insecure telecommunications equipment to keep potentially-hostile actors from connecting to our networks, it is not enough to keep our adversaries at bay.  There are vulnerabilities in our broadband networks and our ability to do something about them was sidelined by the last FCC withdrawing from the arena.  
Take service authorization.  Under Title II of the Communications Act, the FCC grants carriers the right to provide communications in the United States.  It also has the power to take away that right.  We did this during the last several years when we stripped state-affiliated companies from China of their authority to operate in this country.  But it is important to understand that our actions did not extend to broadband, thanks to the work of the last FCC.  So in essence, we took away the right of CCP-affiliated providers to offer long distance voice service in the United States.  But broadband?  We lacked the authority to stop that.  This is not a modern approach to national security and service authorization.  We need to fix it.  
Take cybersecurity.  Our national security authorities are on record detailing how state-affiliated Chinese carriers and others have exploited insecure internet routing protocols to hijack our internet traffic.  When we were asked to do something about it, thanks to the last FCC stepping out of the broadband fray the best we could offer was a forum in the Commission Meeting Room.  I don’t think that deters our adversaries.  We need to fix this.   
Take security issues with data centers.  When the FCC chose to leave broadband outside its purview, it left interconnection rights without any basic oversight.  That means the agency has nothing to say about broadband providers in the United States interconnecting with data centers controlled by CCP-affiliated companies.  Again, this needs a fix.     
Finally, let me say a few words about what we don’t do today.  This is not about rate regulation—no how, no way.  And we will not undermine incentives to invest in networks.  In fact, broadband investment was higher when net neutrality rules were in place than after they were repealed.  How about that?  The action we take here is good for consumers, public safety, national security—and investment.  It’s also good for privacy because Title II of the Communications Act does not let your voice provider sell your location data, among other sensitive information.  Your broadband provider shouldn’t be able to do this either—to anyone or any new artificial intelligence model looking for a payday from your data without your permission.
In our post-pandemic world, we know that broadband is a necessity, not a luxury.  We know that it is an essential service.  And when a consumer has a problem with it, they should be able to reach out to the Nation’s expert on communications and get the help they need.  They should be able to count on a national net neutrality policy that is grounded in the law and history of communications in the United States.  That is why we take this action today to help ensure that broadband is fast, open, and fair—for all of us.  
A proceeding this important and complex requires a large team so let me thank everyone from the Wireline Competition Bureau, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Enforcement Bureau, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Office of Economics and Analytics, Office of Communications Business Opportunities, Office of International Affairs, and Office of General Counsel who worked on this effort.  They are broadband champions, all of them.    



2