Earlier this week, the Chairwoman of the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) revealed plans to revisit the legislation surrounding net neutrality. These plans were long-anticipated; it marks a new chapter in the enduring debate over the regulation of broadband providers’ networks and business practices. The net neutrality issue has been brought back into the limelight by the FCC.
For those unacquainted with the term, net neutrality is a principle that stipulates that all internet traffic should be treated equally, without any discrimination or priority given to certain types of content, applications, or websites. It’s a contentious subject in both politics and businesses, and has faced numerous legislative changes in recent years.
The announcement was made public by Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel in a blog post on the FCC’s website. While she did not reveal specifics, Rosenworcel hinted at the fact that she personally believes in “strong, clear rules” for internet service providers. This has led to speculation that the FCC may seek to reimplement the 2015 Open Internet Order, which was later rolled back in 2015.
According to JD Supra, the consultation will likely address controversial topics such as whether broadband should be treated as a ‘telecommunications service’ or as an ‘information service’, and how certain practices such as paid prioritization should be regulated. The debate also tends to center around the role of the FCC in overseeing broadband providers and enforcing net neutrality rules.
There has been no announcement regarding the timeline for the proposed rule-making process, and it will certainly draw a lot of attention and potentially heated debate. Corporate internet service providers, law firms, and other stakeholders should monitor the situation closely as the consultation unfolds, as the outcome may have significant impacts on their operations and practices.
Whilst various stakeholders have different interpretations of what promoting an “open Internet” entails, it is apparent that the FCC is ready to instigate a new rulemaking process to revisit these differing perspectives.