Just a couple of weeks ago, we forecasted that 2015 might be the year that politics becomes the driving force controlling telecommunications. For better or worse, it looks like that prediction is rapidly becoming true, with Congress attempting to preempt the FCC and take control over the future of Internet regulation.

Within the last few days, Republicans in the Senate and the House of Representatives have introduced draft legislation that would forbid the FCC from reclassifying broadband Internet access as a Title II telecommunications service, but would also forbid paid prioritization deals, and the throttling (slowing) of  traffic for certain customers. Here are the main points of the legislation:

• Obligations of Broadband Internet Access Providers – A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged;
  
  
  • May not block lawful content, applications or services, subject to reasonable network management;
  • May not prohibit the use of non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management;
  • May not throttle lawful traffic by selectively slowing, speeding, degrading, or enhancing Internet traffic based on source, destination, or content, subject to reasonable network management;
  • May not engage in paid prioritization; and,
  • Shall publicly disclose accurate and relevant information in plain language regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadband Internet access services sufficient for consumers to make informed choices regarding use of such services and for content, application, service, and device providers to develop market and maintain Internet offerings, except that a provider is not required to publicly disclose competitively sensitive information or information that could compromise network security or undermine the efficacy of reasonable network management practices.
    
• FCC Authority
  
  
  • The Commission shall enforce the obligations listed above through adjudication of complaints alleging violations of such obligations but may not expand the Internet openness obligations for provision of  broadband Internet access service beyond the obligations established above, whether by rulemaking or otherwise.
  • No later than 60 days after this bill becomes law, the Commission must adopt a formal complaint process to investigate alleged violations of the obligations discussed above.
• Specialized Services – May not be offered in such a way as to threaten the meaningful availability of broadband Internet access. Specialized services are services that broadband Internet access providers may offer over the same last-mile connections used to provide broadband Internet service. Examples include facilities-based VoIP, IP video, e-reading services, heart rate monitoring, and energy sensing. 
• Broadband is an Information Service – As defined by section 706 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
• Reasonable Network Management – Network management is considered reasonable if it is appropriate and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management purpose taking into account the particular network architecture and any technological and operational limitations of the broadband Internet access provider.

There are many aspects of this bill proposal we believe are positive:

• The bill makes no distinction between wireless and wireline broadband Internet access providers, meaning that for the first time, Internet rules would apply to wireless providers.
• The bill would eliminate any possibility that the FCC would reclassify broadband Internet access as a telecommunications service, preventing the years of litigation and uncertainty that would ensue if the FCC were to reclassify broadband Internet access at its February 26, 2015 meeting.
• As an information service, consumer access to the Internet would continue to receive antitrust protection from the Federal Trade Commission.
• With no reclassification, consumers would avoid paying Internet telecommunications taxes.
• Internet service providers (ISPs) would have more certainty in their business and presumably would have more incentives to invest in the Internet and spur employment.
• The FCC would have the ability to investigate Internet abuses on a case-by-case to minimize the incentive for companies to engage in fraudulent practices.