Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2021 / Rules and Regulations Internet Freedom Order took effect on June 11, 2018. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order reversed the Title II
Order 80 FR 19738, April 13, 2015, adopted in March 2015, which reclassified broadband internet access service from an information service to a telecommunications service and reclassified mobile broadband internet access services as a commercial mobile service and adopted three bright-line rulesblocking, throttling, and paid prioritizationas well as a general internet conduct standard and enhancements to the transparency rule. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order, adopted in December 2017, ended the agencys brief foray into utility-style regulation of the internet and restored the light-touch framework under which a free and open internet underwent rapid and unprecedented growth for almost two decades. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order ended Title II regulation of the internet and returned broadband internet access service to its long-standing classification as an information service under Title I, consistent with Supreme Courts holding in Brand X. Having determined that broadband internet access service regardless of whether offered using fixed or mobile technologiesis an information service under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended the Act, we also concluded that as an information service, mobile broadband internet access service should not be classified as a commercial mobile service or its functional equivalent.
4. Mozilla Corp. v. FCC. In Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, the D.C. Circuit largely affirmed the Commissions classification decision in the Restoring Internet Freedom Order. On February 6, 2020, the D.C. Circuit denied all pending petitions for rehearing, and the Court issued its mandate on February 18, 2020. Although largely affirming the Commissions decision, the Mozilla court remanded for further proceedings on three discrete points.
The first is the effect of the changed regulatory posture in the Restoring Internet Freedom Order on public safety. The D.C. Circuit observed that Congress created the Commission for the purpose of, among other things, promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications in section 1 of the Act, and concluded that public safety is an important aspect of the problem that the agency must consider and address. The Mozilla court also noted that a number of commenters voiced concerns about the threat to public
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:55 Jan 06, 2021

Jkt 253001

safety that would arise under the proposed and ultimately adopted Restoring Internet Freedom Order, including how allowing broadband providers to prioritize internet traffic as they see fit, or to demand payment for top-rate speed, could imperil the ability of first responders, providers of critical infrastructure, and members of the public to communicate during a crisis.
The court declined to consider petitioners arguments based on an incident involving the apparently accidental decision by Verizon to throttle the broadband internet of Santa Clara firefighters while they were battling a devastating California wildfire, which occurred after the Restoring Internet Freedom Order.
Likewise, the court declined to consider the responses to those arguments in the Commissions brief because they had not been set forth in the Restoring Internet Freedom Order.
5. The second discrete issue that the D.C. Circuit remanded is how the reclassification of broadband internet access service affects the regulation of pole attachments. The D.C. Circuit noted petitioners substantial concern that, in reclassifying broadband internet as an information service, the Commission, without reasoned consideration, took broadband outside the current statutory scheme governing pole attachments. Our authority over pole attachments pursuant to section 224 of the Act extends to attachments made by a cable television system or provider of telecommunications service.
States may reverse preempt our pole attachment rules and adopt their own rules governing pole attachments in place of ours. The Mozilla court acknowledged our observation that facilities remain subject to pole attachment regulation when deployed by entities commingling broadband internet access service with a service covered by section 224 of the Act. The D.C. Circuit found that our conclusion was sound with respect to providers who commingle telecommunication and broadband services but incomplete given the courts view that postreclassification, the statute textually forecloses any pole-attachment protection for standalone broadband providers. The Mozilla court concluded that the Commission was required to grapple with the matter of pole-attachment regulation for broadband-only providers and remanded the issue for further consideration.
6. The third discrete issue that the court remanded is the statutory basis for broadband internet access services inclusion in the Lifeline program. The
PO 00000

Frm 00063

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

995

Lifeline program helps low-income Americans gain access to affordable communications services, and is part of the Commissions universal service efforts to close the digital divide. First created by the Commission in 1985, Congress codified this commitment to low-income consumers in the 1996
Telecommunications Act. Currently, the Lifeline program offers qualifying lowincome consumers a discount of up to $9.25 per month on voice, broadband internet access service, or bundled services that meet the programs minimum service standards. Consumers who reside on Tribal lands can receive a discount of up to $34.25 on Lifeline service that satisfies the minimum service standards. The D.C. Circuit described petitioners concern that reclassification would eliminate the statutory basis for broadbands inclusion in the Lifeline Program and pointed out that Congress tethered Lifeline eligibility to common-carrier status, citing statutory language limiting the designation of eligible telecommunications carriers ETCs and receipt of universal service support to common carriers. Similarly, citing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuits observation, before broadband was classified as a telecommunications service, that broadband-only providers . . . cannot be designated as eligible telecommunications carriers because under the existing statutory framework, only common carriers . . . are eligible to be designated as eligible telecommunications carriers, the D.C.
Circuit concluded that the Restoring Internet Freedom Orders reclassification of broadband internet access service would appear to preclude broadbands inclusion in the Lifeline Program. Consequently, the Mozilla court remanded this portion of the Restoring Internet Freedom Order for the Commission to address.
II. Discussion 7. We address in turn each of the three issues the Mozilla court remanded and conclude that, in each case, there is no basis to alter our conclusions in the Restoring Internet Freedom Order.
Specifically, we examine the effects that the Restoring Internet Freedom Order might have on public safety communications, pole attachment rights for broadband-only providers, and the universal service Lifeline program, as well as how such possible effects bear on the Commissions underlying decisions to classify broadband internet access service as an information service and eliminate the internet rules. Our analysis below shows that the Restoring
E:FRFM07JAR1.SGM

07JAR1