Net Neutrality/Open Internet Order

Feb 26, 2015

Reading Time : 3 min

By: Jennifer L. Richter, Tom W. Davidson, David S. Turetsky, Visiting Professor, College of Emergency Preparedness, Homeland Security, and Cybersecurity at the University of Albany

  • Bright Line Rules. The order adopts bright line rules banning the following practices the FCC considers to be harmful to consumers: (i) blocking of access to legal content, applications, services or non-harmful devices; (ii) throttling of lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services or non-harmful devices; and (iii) paid prioritization (i.e., no “pay for preference” fast lanes).
  • General Conduct Standard. In addition to the bright line rules above, the new rules adopt a general standard that prohibits broadband ISPs from taking actions that would “unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage” the ability of consumers to select, access and use the lawful content, applications, services or devices available to consumers. Adoption of this standard will allow the FCC to address questionable practices on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration factors such as the impact a particular practice may have on competition. While prior approval of conduct is not required, there will be an optional process available to obtain FCC staff views (that are not binding on the FCC) in certain circumstances on the legality of proposed practices.
  • Enhanced Transparency. The order enhances the FCC’s existing transparency rule by requiring that broadband providers also disclose—in a consistent format—promotional rates, fees and surcharges, and data caps. Broadband providers also must disclose packet loss as a measure of network performance, and provide notice of network management practices that can affect service. In order to allow time for small broadband providers to comply with the new transparency requirements, the order grants a temporary exemption for providers with 100,000 or fewer subscribers.
  • Regulation of Interconnection. For the first time, the FCC extends its open Internet regulatory authority to cover interconnection, that is, the exchange of traffic between broadband service providers and other networks and services. The FCC regulation of interconnection will be separate from the bright line rules and general conduct standard discussed above. Relying on authority from Sections 201 and 202 of the Communications Act, the order enables the FCC to hear complaints, address interconnection disputes and take enforcement action on a case-by-case basis, if it determines interconnection activities are not “just and reasonable.” This approach allows the FCC to address practices with which it has less experience to formulate bright line rules, as compared to services provided to consumers.
  • Reasonable Network Management Permitted. The order permits broadband service providers to conduct reasonable network management practices necessary to manage the technical and engineering aspects of their networks. In evaluating reasonable network management, the FCC’s standard takes account of the particular engineering attributes of the technology involved. The management practices, however, must primarily be used for a legitimate network management objective, and not for an unrelated business purpose.
  • Legal Authority. In adopting the new rules, the FCC relies on authority from Title II of the Communications Act, Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Title III of the Communications Act with respect to the order’s mobile broadband provisions. By adopting forbearance of certain Title II regulations, the FCC asserts that its reclassification of broadband service under Title II addresses any limitations on its ability to adopt strong open Internet rules without imposing unnecessarily burdensome regulations on broadband service providers.
  • Major Title II Provisions Applicable to Broadband Internet Services. The major provisions of Title II that will apply under the open Internet rules are Sections 201 and 202 (e.g., no unjust or unreasonable practices or discrimination); Section 208 (investigation of consumer complaints) and related enforcement provisions (Sections 206, 207, 209, 216 and 217); Section 222 (consumer privacy); Section 224 (fair access to poles and conduits); Sections 225 and 255 (protections for people with disabilities); and partial application of Section 254 (universal service support for broadband services in the future).
  • Major Title II Provisions Subject to Forbearance. The major Title II provisions subject to forbearance are utility-style rate regulation, including tariffs and last-mile unbundling; universal service contributions (issue is being considered in a separate proceeding); and continued exemption from state and local taxation under the Internet Tax Freedom Act.

Before the vote adopting the order, the FCC’s two Republican commissioners voiced strong opposition to the new rules. Commissioner Pai referred to the order as President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet, and argued that the new rules will harm consumers by raising prices, slowing broadband speeds and discouraging innovation. Commissioner O’Rielly also criticized the Democratic commissioners for adopting final rules that he called largely different from the rules originally proposed for public comment. Chairman Wheeler and the other two Democratic commissioners, in contrast, praised the order for its strong consumer protections and ensuring that the Internet remains an open platform for the exchange of ideas. Wheeler blogged, “Today is a red letter day both for an Open Internet, and for a broadband future of investment and expansion.” He also called today the proudest day of his public policy life.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.