{ "id": "R40616", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "R", "number": "R40616", "active": true, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov, EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "title": "The Federal Net Neutrality Debate: Access to Broadband Networks", "retrieved": "2021-03-20T04:03:31.455626", "id": "R40616_139_2021-02-24", "formats": [ { "filename": "files/2021-02-24_R40616_9d1cb0f7a08d12f5be88a7033a2e01e3d03d8051.pdf", "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R40616/139", "sha1": "9d1cb0f7a08d12f5be88a7033a2e01e3d03d8051" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2021-02-24_R40616_9d1cb0f7a08d12f5be88a7033a2e01e3d03d8051.html" } ], "date": "2021-02-24", "summary": null, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "typeId": "R", "active": true, "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R40616", "type": "CRS Report" }, { "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "title": "The Federal Net Neutrality Debate: Access to Broadband Networks", "retrieved": "2021-03-20T04:03:31.454171", "id": "R40616_137_2020-09-18", "formats": [ { "filename": "files/2020-09-18_R40616_418db245a405563b9968f9e37941477b2759aaa0.pdf", "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R40616/137", "sha1": "418db245a405563b9968f9e37941477b2759aaa0" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2020-09-18_R40616_418db245a405563b9968f9e37941477b2759aaa0.html" } ], "date": "2020-09-18", "summary": null, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "typeId": "R", "active": true, "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R40616", "type": "CRS Report" }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 606027, "date": "2019-10-01", "retrieved": "2019-10-10T22:24:06.811424", "title": "The Net Neutrality Debate: Access to Broadband Networks", "summary": "As congressional policymakers continue to debate telecommunications reform, a major discussion point revolves around what approach should be taken to ensure unfettered access to the internet. The move to place restrictions on the owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the internet, to ensure equal access and nondiscriminatory treatment, is referred to as \u201cnet neutrality.\u201d There is no single accepted definition of \u201cnet neutrality,\u201d but most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network. \nThe Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in its February 26, 2015, open meeting voted 3-2, along party lines, to adopt open internet rules and released these rules on March 12, 2015. One of the most controversial aspects of the rules was the decision to reclassify broadband internet access service (BIAS) as telecommunications service under Title II, thereby subjecting internet service providers to a more stringent regulatory framework. With limited exceptions, the rules went into effect June 12, 2015. Various parties challenged the legality of the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in a June 14, 2016, ruling, voted (2-1) to uphold the legality of all aspects of the 2015 FCC Order. A petition for full U.S. Appeals Court review was denied and a subsequent petition for U.S. Supreme Court review was declined. \nThe FCC on December 14, 2017, adopted (3-2) an Order that largely reverses the 2015 regulatory framework. The 2017 Order, among other things, reverses the 2015 classification of BIAS as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act, shifts much of the oversight from the FCC to the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, and provides for a less regulatory approach. This action has once again opened up the debate over what the appropriate framework is to ensure an open internet. Reaction to the 2017 Order has been mixed. Some see the 2015 FCC rules as regulatory overreach and welcome a more \u201clight-touch\u201d approach, which they feel will stimulate broadband investment, deployment, and innovation. Others support the 2015 regulations and feel that their reversal will result in a concentration of power to the detriment of content, services, and applications providers, as well as consumers, and refute the claim that these regulations have had a negative impact on broadband investment, expansion, or innovation. The 2017 Order was published in the Federal Register on February 22, 2018, and went into effect on June 11, 2018. Federal Register publication triggered timelines for both Congressional Review Act (CRA) consideration and court challenges. CRA resolutions (S.J.Res. 52, H.J.Res. 129) to overturn the 2017 Order were introduced in the 115th Congress. S.J.Res. 52 passed (52-47) the Senate, but H.J.Res. 129 was not considered in the House. Additional bills to provide a regulatory framework to outline FCC authority over broadband internet access services were introduced, but not acted on, in the 115th Congress. Petitions for review were consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. The court, in an October 1, 2019, decision, upheld, with some exceptions, the 2017 Order. Appeals could be filed with the full Court of Appeals, the D.C. Circuit, or the U.S. Supreme Court.\nDebate over what the appropriate regulatory framework should be for broadband access has continued in the 116th Congress. Two bills (H.R. 1644, S. 682) add a new title to the Communications Act that overturns the 2017 Order and restores the 2015 Order. An amended version of H.R. 1644 passed (232-190) the House on April 10, 2019, but its counterpart, S. 682, has not been considered in the Senate. Additional bills (H.R. 1006, H.R. 1096, H.R. 1101, H.R. 1860, and H.R. 2136) that address the net neutrality debate have also been introduced.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R40616", "sha1": "f51a02786f8a2b5e6ad851192a244d621a031ea7", "filename": "files/20191001_R40616_f51a02786f8a2b5e6ad851192a244d621a031ea7.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R40616", "sha1": "18e0c3c26b86eed6b72ab878c83f6df26fcd0d5f", "filename": "files/20191001_R40616_18e0c3c26b86eed6b72ab878c83f6df26fcd0d5f.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4871, "name": "Telecommunications & Internet Policy" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 596501, "date": "2019-04-15", "retrieved": "2019-04-18T13:06:47.993691", "title": "The Net Neutrality Debate: Access to Broadband Networks", "summary": "As congressional policymakers continue to debate telecommunications reform, a major discussion point revolves around what approach should be taken to ensure unfettered access to the internet. The move to place restrictions on the owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the internet, to ensure equal access and nondiscriminatory treatment, is referred to as \u201cnet neutrality.\u201d There is no single accepted definition of \u201cnet neutrality,\u201d but most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network. \nThe Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in its February 26, 2015, open meeting voted 3-2, along party lines, to adopt open internet rules and released these rules on March 12, 2015. One of the most controversial aspects of the rules was the decision to reclassify broadband internet access service (BIAS) as telecommunications service under Title II, thereby subjecting internet service providers to a more stringent regulatory framework. With limited exceptions, the rules went into effect June 12, 2015. Various parties challenged the legality of the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in a June 14, 2016, ruling, voted (2-1) to uphold the legality of all aspects of the 2015 FCC Order. A petition for full U.S. Appeals Court review was denied and a subsequent petition for U.S. Supreme Court review was declined. \nThe FCC on December 14, 2017, adopted (3-2) an Order that largely reverses the 2015 regulatory framework. The 2017 Order, among other things, reverses the 2015 classification of BIAS as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act, shifts much of the oversight from the FCC to the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, and provides for a less regulatory approach. This action has once again opened up the debate over what the appropriate framework is to ensure an open internet. Reaction to the 2017 Order has been mixed. Some see the 2015 FCC rules as regulatory overreach and welcome a more \u201clight-touch\u201d approach, which they feel will stimulate broadband investment, deployment, and innovation. Others support the 2015 regulations and feel that their reversal will result in a concentration of power to the detriment of content, services, and applications providers, as well as consumers, and refute the claim that these regulations have had a negative impact on broadband investment, expansion, or innovation. The 2017 Order was published in the Federal Register on February 22, 2018, and went into effect on June 11, 2018. Federal Register publication triggered timelines for both court challenges and Congressional Review Act (CRA) consideration. Petitions for review have been consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. CRA resolutions (S.J.Res. 52, H.J.Res. 129) to overturn the 2017 Order were introduced in the 115th Congress. S.J.Res. 52 passed (52-47) the Senate, but H.J.Res. 129 was not considered in the House. Additional bills to provide a regulatory framework to outline FCC authority over broadband internet access services were introduced, but not acted on, in the 115th Congress.\nDebate over what the appropriate regulatory framework should be for broadband access has continued in the 116th Congress. Two bills (H.R. 1644, S. 682) add a new title to the Communications Act that overturns the 2017 Order and restores the 2015 Order. An amended version of H.R. 1644 passed (232-190) the House on April 10, 2019. Additional bills (H.R. 1006, H.R. 1096, H.R. 1101, and H.R. 1860) that address the net neutrality debate have also been introduced.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R40616", "sha1": "7411295b4e76d1cfc3f5e557f359f207f2f87245", "filename": "files/20190415_R40616_7411295b4e76d1cfc3f5e557f359f207f2f87245.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R40616", "sha1": "1b41f12f53cab94286003724aa0d28558b459315", "filename": "files/20190415_R40616_1b41f12f53cab94286003724aa0d28558b459315.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4871, "name": "Telecommunications & Internet Policy" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 595939, "date": "2019-04-03", "retrieved": "2019-04-17T13:48:00.670898", "title": "The Net Neutrality Debate: Access to Broadband Networks", "summary": "As congressional policymakers continue to debate telecommunications reform, a major discussion point revolves around what approach should be taken to ensure unfettered access to the internet. The move to place restrictions on the owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the internet, to ensure equal access and nondiscriminatory treatment, is referred to as \u201cnet neutrality.\u201d There is no single accepted definition of \u201cnet neutrality,\u201d but most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network. \nThe Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in its February 26, 2015, open meeting voted 3-2, along party lines, to adopt open internet rules and released these rules on March 12, 2015. One of the most controversial aspects of the rules was the decision to reclassify broadband internet access service (BIAS) as telecommunications service under Title II, thereby subjecting internet service providers to a more stringent regulatory framework. With limited exceptions, the rules went into effect June 12, 2015. Various parties challenged the legality of the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in a June 14, 2016, ruling, voted (2-1) to uphold the legality of all aspects of the 2015 FCC Order. A petition for full U.S. Appeals Court review was denied and a subsequent petition for U.S. Supreme Court review was declined. \nThe FCC on December 14, 2017, adopted (3-2) an Order that largely reverses the 2015 regulatory framework. The 2017 Order, among other things, reverses the 2015 classification of BIAS as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act, shifts much of the oversight from the FCC to the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, and provides for a less regulatory approach. This action has once again opened up the debate over what the appropriate framework is to ensure an open internet. Reaction to the 2017 Order has been mixed. Some see the 2015 FCC rules as regulatory overreach and welcome a more \u201clight-touch\u201d approach, which they feel will stimulate broadband investment, deployment, and innovation. Others support the 2015 regulations and feel that their reversal will result in a concentration of power to the detriment of content, services, and applications providers, as well as consumers, and refute the claim that these regulations have had a negative impact on broadband investment, expansion, or innovation. The 2017 Order was published in the Federal Register on February 22, 2018, and went into effect on June 11, 2018. Federal Register publication triggered timelines for both court challenges and Congressional Review Act (CRA) consideration. Petitions for review have been consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. CRA resolutions (S.J.Res. 52, H.J.Res. 129) to overturn the 2017 Order were introduced in the 115th Congress. S.J.Res. 52 passed (52-47) the Senate, but H.J.Res. 129 was not considered in the House. Additional bills to provide a regulatory framework to outline FCC authority over broadband internet access services were introduced, but not acted on, in the 115th Congress.\nDebate over what the appropriate regulatory framework should be for broadband access has continued in the 116th Congress. Two bills (H.R. 1644, S. 682) add a new title to the Communications Act that overturns the 2017 Order and restores the 2015 Order. An amended version of H.R. 1644 passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee on April 3, 2019. Additional bills (H.R. 1006, H.R. 1096, H.R. 1101, and H.R. 1860) that address the net neutrality debate are under consideration.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R40616", "sha1": "fc05bb3e43b45f58411ec2904243b8c405f02240", "filename": "files/20190403_R40616_fc05bb3e43b45f58411ec2904243b8c405f02240.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R40616", "sha1": "11e5226d121692f56bed6c87a3bac096617cb892", "filename": "files/20190403_R40616_11e5226d121692f56bed6c87a3bac096617cb892.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4871, "name": "Telecommunications & Internet Policy" } ] }, { "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "title": "The Federal Net Neutrality Debate: Access to Broadband Networks", "retrieved": "2021-03-20T04:03:31.449431", "id": "R40616_128_2019-03-28", "formats": [ { "filename": "files/2019-03-28_R40616_ebfd50159caf0c21aab5c43ef7e6d4e7d918ed56.pdf", "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R40616/128", "sha1": "ebfd50159caf0c21aab5c43ef7e6d4e7d918ed56" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2019-03-28_R40616_ebfd50159caf0c21aab5c43ef7e6d4e7d918ed56.html" } ], "date": "2019-03-28", "summary": null, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "typeId": "R", "active": true, "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R40616", "type": "CRS Report" }, { "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "title": "The Federal Net Neutrality Debate: Access to Broadband Networks", "retrieved": "2021-03-20T04:03:31.447698", "id": "R40616_126_2019-03-21", "formats": [ { "filename": "files/2019-03-21_R40616_bb60085c9dcd2da5842b002bf46d59c37cabf92d.pdf", "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R40616/126", "sha1": "bb60085c9dcd2da5842b002bf46d59c37cabf92d" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2019-03-21_R40616_bb60085c9dcd2da5842b002bf46d59c37cabf92d.html" } ], "date": "2019-03-21", "summary": null, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "typeId": "R", "active": true, "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R40616", "type": "CRS Report" }, { "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "title": "The Federal Net Neutrality Debate: Access to Broadband Networks", "retrieved": "2021-03-20T04:03:31.447116", "id": "R40616_125_2019-01-30", "formats": [ { "filename": "files/2019-01-30_R40616_86c5ec516d39c409519ba140b7e0a38abf484389.pdf", "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R40616/125", "sha1": "86c5ec516d39c409519ba140b7e0a38abf484389" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2019-01-30_R40616_86c5ec516d39c409519ba140b7e0a38abf484389.html" } ], "date": "2019-01-30", "summary": null, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "typeId": "R", "active": true, "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R40616", "type": "CRS Report" }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 583149, "date": "2018-07-19", "retrieved": "2018-08-07T13:55:09.492960", "title": "The Net Neutrality Debate: Access to Broadband Networks", "summary": "As congressional policymakers continue to debate telecommunications reform, a major discussion point revolves around what approach should be taken to ensure unfettered access to the internet. The move to place restrictions on the owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the internet, to ensure equal access and nondiscriminatory treatment, is referred to as \u201cnet neutrality.\u201d There is no single accepted definition of \u201cnet neutrality,\u201d but most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network. \nThe Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in its February 26, 2015, open meeting voted 3-2, along party lines, to adopt open internet rules and released these rules on March 12, 2015. One of the most controversial aspects of the rules was the decision to reclassify broadband internet access service as telecommunications service under Title II, thereby subjecting internet service providers to a more stringent regulatory framework. With limited exceptions, the rules went into effect June 12, 2015. Various parties challenged the legality of the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in a June 14, 2016, ruling, voted (2-1) to uphold the legality of all aspects of the 2015 FCC Order. A petition for full U.S. Appeals Court review was denied but parties have petitioned for U.S. Supreme Court review. \nThe FCC on December 14, 2017, adopted (3-2) an Order that largely reverses the 2015 regulatory framework. The 2017 Order, among other things, reverses the 2015 classification of broadband internet access services as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act, shifts much of the oversight from the FCC to the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, and provides for a less regulatory approach. This action has once again opened up the debate over what the appropriate framework is to ensure an open internet. Reaction to the 2017 Order has been mixed. Some see the 2015 FCC rules as regulatory overreach and welcome a more \u201clight-touch\u201d approach, which they feel will stimulate broadband investment, deployment, and innovation. Others support the 2015 regulations and feel that their reversal will result in a concentration of power to the detriment of content, services, and applications providers, as well as consumers, and refute the claim that these regulations have had a negative impact on broadband investment, expansion, or innovation. The 2017 Order was published in the Federal Register on February 22, 2018, and went into effect on June 11, 2018. Federal Register publication triggered timelines for both court challenges and Congressional Review Act (CRA) consideration. Petitions for review have been consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. CRA resolutions to overturn the 2017 Order have passed (52-47) the Senate (S.J.Res. 52) on May 16, 2018, and been introduced in the House (H.J.Res. 129). \nThe FCC\u2019s move to adopt the 2017 Order has reopened the debate over whether Congress should consider a measure to amend existing law to provide greater regulatory stability and guidance to the FCC regarding broadband access. H.R. 4682, introduced by Representative Blackburn, and S. 2510, introduced by Senator Kennedy, contain among their provisions those that prohibit blocking and throttling by broadband internet access providers and classify broadband internet access service as an information service. S. 2853, introduced by Senator Thune, also contains provisions that classify broadband internet access service as an information service, prohibit blocking and throttling, but also prohibit paid prioritization. H.R. 6393, introduced by Representative Coffman, contains among its provisions those that prohibit blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization, and establishes a general conduct standard. Whether Congress will choose to address comprehensive legislation to amend the 1934 Communications Act, to provide a broad-based regulatory framework, remains to be seen.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R40616", "sha1": "fbd5e03d740013cce598e15f655842fbe29666c9", "filename": "files/20180719_R40616_fbd5e03d740013cce598e15f655842fbe29666c9.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R40616", "sha1": "a9b1b96d41d5cd908690d10bcdb0ea82046384f0", "filename": "files/20180719_R40616_a9b1b96d41d5cd908690d10bcdb0ea82046384f0.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4871, "name": "Telecommunications & Internet Policy" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 582312, "date": "2018-06-22", "retrieved": "2018-06-27T13:26:44.938153", "title": "The Net Neutrality Debate: Access to Broadband Networks", "summary": "As congressional policymakers continue to debate telecommunications reform, a major discussion point revolves around what approach should be taken to ensure unfettered access to the internet. The move to place restrictions on the owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the internet, to ensure equal access and nondiscriminatory treatment, is referred to as \u201cnet neutrality.\u201d There is no single accepted definition of \u201cnet neutrality,\u201d but most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network. \nThe Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in its February 26, 2015, open meeting voted 3-2, along party lines, to adopt open internet rules and released these rules on March 12, 2015. One of the most controversial aspects of the rules was the decision to reclassify broadband internet access service as telecommunications service under Title II, thereby subjecting internet service providers to a more stringent regulatory framework. With limited exceptions, the rules went into effect June 12, 2015. Various parties challenged the legality of the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in a June 14, 2016, ruling, voted (2-1) to uphold the legality of all aspects of the 2015 FCC Order. A petition for full U.S. Appeals Court review was denied but parties have petitioned for U.S. Supreme Court review. \nThe FCC on December 14, 2017, adopted (3-2) an Order that largely reverses the 2015 regulatory framework. The 2017 Order, among other things, reverses the 2015 classification of broadband internet access services as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act, shifts much of the oversight from the FCC to the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, and provides for a less regulatory approach. This action has once again opened up the debate over what the appropriate framework is to ensure an open internet. Reaction to the 2017 Order has been mixed. Some see the 2015 FCC rules as regulatory overreach and welcome a more \u201clight-touch\u201d approach, which they feel will stimulate broadband investment, deployment, and innovation. Others support the 2015 regulations and feel that their reversal will result in a concentration of power to the detriment of content, services, and applications providers, as well as consumers, and refute the claim that these regulations have had a negative impact on broadband investment, expansion, or innovation. The 2017 Order was published in the Federal Register on February 22, 2018, and went into effect on June 11, 2018. Federal Register publication triggered timelines for both court challenges and Congressional Review Act (CRA) consideration. Petitions for review have been consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. CRA resolutions to overturn the 2017 Order have passed (52-47) the Senate (S.J.Res. 52) on May 16, 2018, and been introduced in the House (H.J.Res. 129). \nThe FCC\u2019s move to adopt the 2017 Order has reopened the debate over whether Congress should consider a measure to amend existing law to provide greater regulatory stability and guidance to the FCC regarding broadband access. H.R. 4682, introduced by Representative Blackburn, and S. 2510, introduced by Senator Kennedy, contain among their provisions those that prohibit blocking and throttling by broadband internet access providers and classify broadband internet access service as an information service. S. 2853, introduced by Senator Thune, also contains provisions that classify broadband internet access service as an information service, prohibit blocking and throttling, but also prohibit paid prioritization. Whether Congress will choose to address comprehensive legislation to amend the 1934 Communications Act, to provide a broad-based regulatory framework, remains to be seen. Congressional action in the 115th Congress has also focused on two aspects of the 2015 rules: privacy and transparency. Separately, legislation (S. 993) to nullify the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order has also been introduced.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R40616", "sha1": "63d61cca9275d069fdf069571e8b6128ff3e3275", "filename": "files/20180622_R40616_63d61cca9275d069fdf069571e8b6128ff3e3275.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R40616", "sha1": "f51f08bf6fdef4577e2e50f7028800fc15b567ec", "filename": "files/20180622_R40616_f51f08bf6fdef4577e2e50f7028800fc15b567ec.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4871, "name": "Telecommunications & Internet Policy" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 581712, "date": "2018-06-05", "retrieved": "2018-06-12T14:07:41.036332", "title": "The Net Neutrality Debate: Access to Broadband Networks", "summary": "As congressional policymakers continue to debate telecommunications reform, a major discussion point revolves around what approach should be taken to ensure unfettered access to the internet. The move to place restrictions on the owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the internet, to ensure equal access and nondiscriminatory treatment, is referred to as \u201cnet neutrality.\u201d There is no single accepted definition of \u201cnet neutrality,\u201d but most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network. \nThe Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in its February 26, 2015, open meeting voted 3-2, along party lines, to adopt open internet rules and released these rules on March 12, 2015. One of the most controversial aspects of the rules was the decision to reclassify broadband internet access service as telecommunications service under Title II, thereby subjecting internet service providers to a more stringent regulatory framework. With limited exceptions, the rules went into effect June 12, 2015. Various parties challenged the legality of the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in a June 14, 2016, ruling, voted (2-1) to uphold the legality of all aspects of the 2015 FCC Order. A petition for full U.S. Appeals Court review was denied but parties have petitioned for U.S. Supreme Court review. \nThe FCC on December 14, 2017, adopted (3-2) an Order that largely reverses the 2015 regulatory framework. The 2017 Order, among other things, reverses the 2015 classification of broadband internet access services as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act, shifts much of the oversight from the FCC to the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, and provides for a less regulatory approach. This action has once again opened up the debate over what the appropriate framework is to ensure an open internet. Reaction to the 2017 Order has been mixed. Some see the 2015 FCC rules as regulatory overreach and welcome a more \u201clight-touch\u201d approach, which they feel will stimulate broadband investment, deployment, and innovation. Others support the 2015 regulations and feel that their reversal will result in a concentration of power to the detriment of content, services, and applications providers, as well as consumers, and refute the claim that these regulations have had a negative impact on broadband investment, expansion, or innovation. The 2017 Order was published in the Federal Register on February 22, 2018, and will go into effect on June 11, 2018. Federal Register publication triggered timelines for both court challenges and Congressional Review Act (CRA) consideration. Petitions for review have been consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. CRA resolutions to overturn the 2017 Order have passed (52-47) the Senate (S.J.Res. 52) on May 16, 2018, and been introduced in the House (H.J.Res. 129). \nThe FCC\u2019s move to adopt the 2017 Order has reopened the debate over whether Congress should consider a measure to amend existing law to provide greater regulatory stability and guidance to the FCC. H.R. 4682, introduced by Representative Blackburn, and S. 2510 introduced by Senator Kennedy, contain among their provisions those that prohibit blocking and throttling by broadband internet access providers and classify broadband internet access service as an information service. S. 2853, introduced by Senator Thune, also contains provisions that classify broadband internet access service as an information service, prohibit blocking and throttling, but also prohibit paid prioritization. Whether Congress will choose to address comprehensive legislation to amend the 1934 Communications Act, to provide a broad-based regulatory framework, remains to be seen. Congressional action in the 115th Congress has also focused on two aspects of the 2015 rules: privacy and transparency. Separately, legislation (S. 993) to nullify the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order has also been introduced.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R40616", "sha1": "49766ef140a097ce66a0ec7f280ba474272edb54", "filename": "files/20180605_R40616_49766ef140a097ce66a0ec7f280ba474272edb54.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R40616", "sha1": "ed3dfb941bf185612ffff08e2164943407da4100", "filename": "files/20180605_R40616_ed3dfb941bf185612ffff08e2164943407da4100.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4871, "name": "Telecommunications & Internet Policy" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 581234, "date": "2018-05-16", "retrieved": "2018-05-22T13:14:56.588140", "title": "The Net Neutrality Debate: Access to Broadband Networks", "summary": "As congressional policymakers continue to debate telecommunications reform, a major discussion point revolves around what approach should be taken to ensure unfettered access to the internet. The move to place restrictions on the owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the internet, to ensure equal access and nondiscriminatory treatment, is referred to as \u201cnet neutrality.\u201d While there is no single accepted definition of \u201cnet neutrality,\u201d most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network. \nThe Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in its February 26, 2015, open meeting voted 3-2, along party lines, to adopt open internet rules and released these rules on March 12, 2015. One of the most controversial aspects of the rules was the decision to reclassify broadband internet access service as telecommunications service under Title II, thereby subjecting internet service providers to a more stringent regulatory framework. With limited exceptions, the rules went into effect June 12, 2015. Various parties challenged the legality of the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in a June 14, 2016, ruling, voted (2-1) to uphold the legality of all aspects of the 2015 FCC Order. A petition for full U.S. Appeals Court review was denied but parties have petitioned for U.S. Supreme Court review. \nThe FCC on December 14, 2017, adopted (3-2) an Order that largely reverses the 2015 regulatory framework. The 2017 Order, among other things, reverses the 2015 classification of broadband internet access services as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act, shifts much of the oversight from the FCC to the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, and provides for a less regulatory approach. This action has once again opened up the debate over what the appropriate framework is to ensure an open internet. Reaction to the 2017 Order has been mixed. Some see the 2015 FCC rules as regulatory overreach and welcome a more \u201clight-touch\u201d approach, which they feel will stimulate broadband investment, deployment, and innovation. Others support the 2015 regulations and feel that their reversal will result in a concentration of power to the detriment of content, services, and applications providers, as well as consumers, and refute the claim that these regulations have had a negative impact on broadband investment, expansion, or innovation. The 2017 Order was published in the Federal Register on February 22, 2018, and will go into effect on June 11, 2018. Federal Register publication triggered timelines for both court challenges and Congressional Review Act (CRA) consideration. Petitions for review have been consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. CRA resolutions to overturn the 2017 Order have passed (52-47) the Senate (S.J.Res. 52) on May 16, 2018, and been introduced in the House (H.J.Res. 129). \nThe FCC\u2019s move to adopt the 2017 Order has reopened the debate over whether Congress should consider a measure to amend existing law to provide greater regulatory stability and guidance to the FCC. H.R. 4682, introduced by Representative Blackburn, and S. 2510 introduced by Senator Kennedy, contain among their provisions those that prohibit blocking and throttling by broadband internet access providers and classify broadband internet access service as an information service. Whether Congress will choose to address comprehensive legislation to amend the 1934 Communications Act, to provide a broad-based regulatory framework, remains to be seen. Congressional action in the 115th Congress has also focused on two aspects of the 2015 rules: privacy and transparency. Separately, legislation (S. 993) to nullify the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order has also been introduced.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R40616", "sha1": "5ed5efa6104ccc2b8de96a15e8fcf1e721565845", "filename": "files/20180516_R40616_5ed5efa6104ccc2b8de96a15e8fcf1e721565845.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R40616", "sha1": "8f885f966eb70df7f27007920a732a1d4e25cc43", "filename": "files/20180516_R40616_8f885f966eb70df7f27007920a732a1d4e25cc43.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4871, "name": "Telecommunications & Internet Policy" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 581044, "date": "2018-05-11", "retrieved": "2018-05-15T13:00:51.840678", "title": "The Net Neutrality Debate: Access to Broadband Networks", "summary": "As congressional policymakers continue to debate telecommunications reform, a major discussion point revolves around what approach should be taken to ensure unfettered access to the internet. The move to place restrictions on the owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the internet, to ensure equal access and nondiscriminatory treatment, is referred to as \u201cnet neutrality.\u201d While there is no single accepted definition of \u201cnet neutrality,\u201d most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network. \nThe Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in its February 26, 2015, open meeting voted 3-2, along party lines, to adopt open internet rules and released these rules on March 12, 2015. One of the most controversial aspects of the rules was the decision to reclassify broadband internet access service as telecommunications service under Title II, thereby subjecting internet service providers to a more stringent regulatory framework. With limited exceptions, the rules went into effect June 12, 2015. Various parties challenged the legality of the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in a June 14, 2016, ruling, voted (2-1) to uphold the legality of all aspects of the 2015 FCC Order. A petition for full U.S. Appeals Court review was denied but parties have petitioned for U.S. Supreme Court review. \nThe FCC on December 14, 2017, adopted (3-2) an Order that largely reverses the 2015 regulatory framework. The 2017 Order, among other things, reverses the 2015 classification of broadband internet access services as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act, shifts much of the oversight from the FCC to the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, and provides for a less regulatory approach. This action has once again opened up the debate over what the appropriate framework is to ensure an open internet. Reaction to the 2017 Order has been mixed. Some see the 2015 FCC rules as regulatory overreach and welcome a more \u201clight-touch\u201d approach, which they feel will stimulate broadband investment, deployment, and innovation. Others support the 2015 regulations and feel that their reversal will result in a concentration of power to the detriment of content, services, and applications providers, as well as consumers, and refute the claim that these regulations have had a negative impact on broadband investment, expansion, or innovation. The 2017 Order was published in the Federal Register on February 22, 2018, and will go into effect on June 11, 2018. Federal Register publication triggered timelines for both court challenges and Congressional Review Act (CRA) consideration. Petitions for review have been consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, and CRA resolutions to overturn the 2017 Order have been introduced in both the House (H.J.Res. 129) and the Senate (S.J.Res. 52); a discharge petition for S.J. Res. 52 was filed on May 9, 2018, with a deadline, to date, for a Senate vote of June 13, 2018. \nThe FCC\u2019s move to adopt the 2017 Order has reopened the debate over whether Congress should consider a measure to amend existing law to provide greater regulatory stability and guidance to the FCC. H.R. 4682, introduced by Representative Blackburn, and S. 2510 introduced by Senator Kennedy, contain among their provisions those that prohibit blocking and throttling by broadband internet access providers and classifies broadband internet access service as an information service. Whether Congress will choose to address comprehensive legislation to amend the 1934 Communications Act, to provide a broad-based regulatory framework, remains to be seen. Congressional action in the 115th Congress has also focused on two aspects of the 2015 rules: privacy and transparency. Separately, legislation (S. 993) to nullify the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order has also been introduced.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R40616", "sha1": "2df7581c62541742d42b5e558ceab338643ea72c", "filename": "files/20180511_R40616_2df7581c62541742d42b5e558ceab338643ea72c.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R40616", "sha1": "1d934d25fe4d37defdb894c01be0db60f06a9a68", "filename": "files/20180511_R40616_1d934d25fe4d37defdb894c01be0db60f06a9a68.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4871, "name": "Telecommunications & Internet Policy" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 579941, "date": "2018-04-06", "retrieved": "2018-04-10T13:19:11.320259", "title": "The Net Neutrality Debate: Access to Broadband Networks", "summary": "As congressional policymakers continue to debate telecommunications reform, a major discussion point revolves around what approach should be taken to ensure unfettered access to the internet. The move to place restrictions on the owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the internet, to ensure equal access and nondiscriminatory treatment, is referred to as \u201cnet neutrality.\u201d While there is no single accepted definition of \u201cnet neutrality,\u201d most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network. \nThe Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in its February 26, 2015, open meeting voted 3-2, along party lines, to adopt open internet rules and released these rules on March 12, 2015. One of the most controversial aspects of the rules was the decision to reclassify broadband internet access service as telecommunications service under Title II, thereby subjecting internet service providers to a more stringent regulatory framework. With limited exceptions, the rules went into effect June 12, 2015. Various parties challenged the legality of the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in a June 14, 2016, ruling, voted (2-1) to uphold the legality of all aspects of the 2015 FCC Order. A petition for full U.S. Appeals Court review was denied but parties have petitioned for U.S. Supreme Court review. \nThe FCC on December 14, 2017, adopted (3-2) an Order that largely reverses the 2015 regulatory framework. The 2017 Order, among other things, reverses the 2015 classification of broadband internet access services as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act, shifts much of the oversight from the FCC to the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, and provides for a less regulatory approach. This action has once again opened up the debate over what the appropriate framework is to ensure an open internet. Reaction to the 2017 Order has been mixed. Some see the 2015 FCC rules as regulatory overreach and welcome a more \u201clight-touch\u201d approach, which they feel will stimulate broadband investment, deployment, and innovation. Others support the 2015 regulations and feel that their reversal will result in a concentration of power to the detriment of content, services, and applications providers, as well as consumers, and refute the claim that these regulations have had a negative impact on broadband investment, expansion, or innovation. The 2017 Order was published in the Federal Register on February 22, 2018, triggering timelines for both court challenges and Congressional Review Act (CRA) consideration. Petitions for review have been consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, and CRA resolutions to overturn the 2017 Order have been introduced in both the House (H.J.Res. 129) and the Senate (S.J.Res. 52). \nThe FCC\u2019s move to adopt the 2017 Order has reopened the debate over whether Congress should consider a measure to amend existing law to provide greater regulatory stability and guidance to the FCC. H.R. 4682, introduced on December 19, 2017, by Representative Blackburn, and S. 2510 introduced on March 7, 2018 by Senator Kennedy, contain among their provisions those that prohibit blocking and throttling by broadband internet access providers and classifies broadband internet access service as an information service. Whether Congress will choose to address comprehensive legislation to amend the 1934 Communications Act, to provide a broad-based regulatory framework, remains to be seen. Congressional action in the 115th Congress has also focused on two aspects of the 2015 rules: privacy (S.J.Res. 34, S. 878, S. 964, H.J.Res. 86, H.Res. 230, H.R. 1754, H.R. 1868, H.R. 2520, H.R. 3175) and transparency (S. 228, H.R. 288). Separately, legislation (S. 993) to nullify the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order has also been introduced.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R40616", "sha1": "3eae5b29844c2752b95f25e952b2a8d574169329", "filename": "files/20180406_R40616_3eae5b29844c2752b95f25e952b2a8d574169329.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R40616", "sha1": "a750c7c4a68a9089623aa69c3b431af9616789f4", "filename": "files/20180406_R40616_a750c7c4a68a9089623aa69c3b431af9616789f4.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4871, "name": "Telecommunications & Internet Policy" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 579165, "date": "2018-03-07", "retrieved": "2018-04-03T13:46:41.151818", "title": "The Net Neutrality Debate: Access to Broadband Networks", "summary": "As congressional policymakers continue to debate telecommunications reform, a major discussion point revolves around what approach should be taken to ensure unfettered access to the internet. The move to place restrictions on the owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the internet, to ensure equal access and nondiscriminatory treatment, is referred to as \u201cnet neutrality.\u201d While there is no single accepted definition of \u201cnet neutrality,\u201d most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network. \nThe Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in its February 26, 2015, open meeting voted 3-2, along party lines, to adopt open internet rules and released these rules on March 12, 2015. One of the most controversial aspects of the rules was the decision to reclassify broadband internet access service as telecommunications service under Title II, thereby subjecting internet service providers to a more stringent regulatory framework. With limited exceptions, the rules went into effect June 12, 2015. Various parties challenged the legality of the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in a June 14, 2016, ruling, voted (2-1) to uphold the legality of all aspects of the 2015 FCC Order. A petition for full U.S. Appeals Court review was denied but parties have petitioned for U.S. Supreme Court review. \nThe FCC on December 14, 2017, adopted (3-2) an Order that largely reverses the 2015 regulatory framework. The 2017 Order, among other things, reverses the 2015 classification of broadband internet access services as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act, shifts much of the oversight from the FCC to the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, and provides for a less regulatory approach. This action has once again opened up the debate over what the appropriate framework is to ensure an open internet. Reaction to the 2017 Order has been mixed. Some see the 2015 FCC rules as regulatory overreach and welcome a more \u201clight-touch\u201d approach, which they feel will stimulate broadband investment, deployment, and innovation. Others support the 2015 regulations and feel that their reversal will result in a concentration of power to the detriment of content, services, and applications providers, as well as consumers, and refute the claim that these regulations have had a negative impact on broadband investment, expansion, or innovation. The 2017 Order was published in the Federal Register on February 22, 2018, triggering timelines for both court challenges and Congressional Review Act (CRA) consideration. Petitions requesting U.S. Court of Appeals review have been filed and CRA resolutions to overturn the 2017 Order have been introduced in both the House (H.J.Res. 129) and the Senate (S.J.Res. 52). \nThe FCC\u2019s move to adopt the 2017 Order has reopened the debate over whether Congress should consider a measure to amend existing law to provide greater regulatory stability and guidance to the FCC. H.R. 4682, introduced on December 19, 2017, by Representative Blackburn, and S. 2510 introduced on March 7, 2018 by Senator Kennedy, contain among their provisions those that prohibit blocking and throttling by broadband internet access providers and classifies broadband internet access service as an information service. Whether Congress will choose to address comprehensive legislation to amend the 1934 Communications Act, to provide a broad-based regulatory framework, remains to be seen. Congressional action in the 115th Congress has also focused on two aspects of the 2015 rules: privacy (S.J.Res. 34, S. 878, S. 964, H.J.Res. 86, H.Res. 230, H.R. 1754, H.R. 1868, H.R. 2520, H.R. 3175) and transparency (S. 228, H.R. 288). Separately, legislation (S. 993) to nullify the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order has also been introduced.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R40616", "sha1": "addec26f641e864d0663d7e63bcc440e6a85a904", "filename": "files/20180307_R40616_addec26f641e864d0663d7e63bcc440e6a85a904.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R40616", "sha1": "62c68a9edfa3b7e21c56b3d0c1b126c17c863b2b", "filename": "files/20180307_R40616_62c68a9edfa3b7e21c56b3d0c1b126c17c863b2b.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4871, "name": "Telecommunications & Internet Policy" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 578830, "date": "2018-02-27", "retrieved": "2018-03-09T00:10:56.400820", "title": "The Net Neutrality Debate: Access to Broadband Networks", "summary": "As congressional policymakers continue to debate telecommunications reform, a major discussion point revolves around what approach should be taken to ensure unfettered access to the internet. The move to place restrictions on the owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the internet, to ensure equal access and nondiscriminatory treatment, is referred to as \u201cnet neutrality.\u201d While there is no single accepted definition of \u201cnet neutrality,\u201d most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network. \nThe Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in its February 26, 2015, open meeting voted 3-2, along party lines, to adopt open internet rules and released these rules on March 12, 2015. One of the most controversial aspects of the rules was the decision to reclassify broadband internet access service as telecommunications service under Title II, thereby subjecting internet service providers to a more stringent regulatory framework. With limited exceptions, the rules went into effect June 12, 2015. Various parties challenged the legality of the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in a June 14, 2016, ruling, voted (2-1) to uphold the legality of all aspects of the 2015 FCC Order. A petition for full U.S. Appeals Court review was denied but parties have petitioned for U.S. Supreme Court review. \nThe FCC on December 14, 2017, adopted (3-2) an Order that largely reverses the 2015 regulatory framework. The 2017 Order, among other things, reverses the 2015 classification of broadband internet access services as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act, shifts much of the oversight from the FCC to the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, and provides for a less regulatory approach. This action has once again opened up the debate over what the appropriate framework is to ensure an open internet. Reaction to the 2017 Order has been mixed. Some see the 2015 FCC rules as regulatory overreach and welcome a more \u201clight-touch\u201d approach, which they feel will stimulate broadband investment, deployment, and innovation. Others support the 2015 regulations and feel that their reversal will result in a concentration of power to the detriment of content, services, and applications providers, as well as consumers, and refute the claim that these regulations have had a negative impact on broadband investment, expansion, or innovation. The 2017 Order was published in the Federal Register on February 22, 2018, triggering timelines for both court challenges and Congressional Review Act (CRA) consideration. Petitions requesting U.S. Court of Appeals review have been filed and CRA resolutions to overturn the 2017 Order have been introduced in both the House (H.J.Res. 129) and the Senate (S.J.Res. 52). \nThe FCC\u2019s move to adopt the 2017 Order has reopened the debate over whether Congress should consider a measure to amend existing law to provide greater regulatory stability and guidance to the FCC. H.R. 4682, introduced on December 19, 2017, by Representative Blackburn, contains among its provisions those that prohibit blocking and throttling by broadband internet access providers and classifies broadband internet access service as an information service. Whether Congress will choose to address comprehensive legislation to amend the 1934 Communications Act, to provide a broad-based regulatory framework, remains to be seen. Congressional action in the 115th Congress has also focused on two aspects of the 2015 rules: privacy (S.J.Res. 34, S. 878, S. 964, H.J.Res. 86, H.Res. 230, H.R. 1754, H.R. 1868, H.R. 2520, H.R. 3175) and transparency (S. 228, H.R. 288). Separately, legislation (S. 993) to nullify the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order has also been introduced.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R40616", "sha1": "95413c58d238057ddede9de9d008d4715d0a5c52", "filename": "files/20180227_R40616_95413c58d238057ddede9de9d008d4715d0a5c52.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R40616", "sha1": "4c5168b258768b1c8e21ffbf946ec4c5eee93939", "filename": "files/20180227_R40616_4c5168b258768b1c8e21ffbf946ec4c5eee93939.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4871, "name": "Telecommunications & Internet Policy" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 577049, "date": "2017-12-20", "retrieved": "2018-01-03T13:55:05.306383", "title": "The Net Neutrality Debate: Access to Broadband Networks", "summary": "As congressional policymakers continue to debate telecommunications reform, a major discussion point revolves around what approach should be taken to ensure unfettered access to the Internet. The move to place restrictions on the owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet, to ensure equal access and nondiscriminatory treatment, is referred to as \u201cnet neutrality.\u201d While there is no single accepted definition of \u201cnet neutrality,\u201d most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network. \nThe Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in its February 26, 2015, open meeting voted 3-2, along party lines, to adopt open Internet rules and released these rules on March 12, 2015. One of the most controversial aspects of the rules was the decision to reclassify broadband Internet access service as telecommunications service under Title II, thereby subjecting Internet service providers to a more stringent regulatory framework. With limited exceptions, the rules went into effect June 12, 2015. Various parties challenged the legality of the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in a June 14, 2016, ruling, voted (2-1) to uphold the legality of all aspects of the 2015 FCC Order. A petition for full U.S. Appeals Court review was denied but parties have petitioned for U.S. Supreme Court review. \nThe FCC on December 14, 2017, adopted (3-2) an Order that largely reverses the 2015 regulatory framework. The 2017 Order, among other things, reverses the 2015 classification of broadband Internet access services as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act, shifts much of the oversight from the FCC to the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, and provides for a less regulatory approach. This action has once again opened up the debate over what the appropriate framework is to ensure an open Internet. Reaction to the 2017 Order has been mixed. Some see the 2015 FCC rules as regulatory overreach and welcome a more \u201clight-touch\u201d approach, which they feel will stimulate broadband investment, deployment, and innovation. Others support the 2015 regulations and feel that their reversal will result in a concentration of power to the detriment of content, services, and applications providers, as well as consumers, and refute the claim that these regulations have had a negative impact on broadband investment, expansion, or innovation. Upon release, the 2017 Order will be published in the Federal Register and contain dates for implementation. Until that time the 2015 rules will remain in effect. \nThe FCC\u2019s move to adopt the 2017 Order has reopened the debate over whether Congress should consider a measure to amend existing law to provide greater regulatory stability and guidance to the FCC. H.R. 4682, introduced on December 19, 2017, by Representative Blackburn, contains among its provisions those that prohibit blocking and throttling by broadband internet access providers and classifies broadband internet access service as an information service. Whether Congress will choose to address comprehensive legislation to amend the 1934 Communications Act, to provide a broad-based regulatory framework, remains to be seen. To date, congressional action in the 115th Congress has focused on two aspects of the 2015 rules: privacy (S.J.Res. 34, S. 878, S. 964, H.J.Res. 86, H.Res. 230, H.R. 1754, H.R. 1868, H.R. 2520, H.R. 3175) and transparency (S. 228, H.R. 288). Separately, legislation (S. 993) to nullify the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order has also been introduced.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R40616", "sha1": "eb1f00ef16fe701be41233913f2d2f0796b5d091", "filename": "files/20171220_R40616_eb1f00ef16fe701be41233913f2d2f0796b5d091.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R40616", "sha1": "b7e110e0da8f43e6630b671b0067cdaa84fb2c9d", "filename": "files/20171220_R40616_b7e110e0da8f43e6630b671b0067cdaa84fb2c9d.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4871, "name": "Telecommunications & Internet Policy" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 576797, "date": "2017-12-14", "retrieved": "2017-12-19T13:50:22.049079", "title": "The Net Neutrality Debate: Access to Broadband Networks", "summary": "As congressional policymakers continue to debate telecommunications reform, a major discussion point revolves around what approach should be taken to ensure unfettered access to the Internet. The move to place restrictions on the owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet, to ensure equal access and nondiscriminatory treatment, is referred to as \u201cnet neutrality.\u201d While there is no single accepted definition of \u201cnet neutrality,\u201d most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network. \nThe Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in its February 26, 2015, open meeting voted 3-2, along party lines, to adopt open Internet rules and released these rules on March 12, 2015. One of the most controversial aspects of the rules was the decision to reclassify broadband Internet access service as telecommunications service under Title II, thereby subjecting Internet service providers to a more stringent regulatory framework. With limited exceptions, the rules went into effect June 12, 2015. Various parties challenged the legality of the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in a June 14, 2016, ruling, voted (2-1) to uphold the legality of all aspects of the 2015 FCC Order. A petition for full U.S. Appeals Court review was denied but parties have petitioned for U.S. Supreme Court review. \nThe FCC on December 14, 2017, adopted (3-2) an Order that largely reverses the 2015 regulatory framework. The 2017 Order, among other things, reverses the 2015 classification of broadband Internet access services as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act, shifts much of the oversight from the FCC to the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, and provides for a less regulatory approach. This action has once again opened up the debate over what the appropriate framework is to ensure an open Internet. Reaction to the 2017 Order has been mixed. Some see the 2015 FCC rules as regulatory overreach and welcome a more \u201clight-touch\u201d approach, which they feel will stimulate broadband investment, deployment, and innovation. Others support the 2015 regulations and feel that their reversal will result in a concentration of power to the detriment of content, services, and applications providers, as well as consumers, and refute the claim that these regulations have had a negative impact on broadband investment, expansion, or innovation. Upon release, the 2017 Order will be published in the Federal Register and contain dates for implementation. Until that time the 2015 rules will remain in effect. \nTo date, congressional action in the 115th Congress has focused on two aspects of the 2015 rules: privacy (S.J.Res. 34, S. 878, S. 964, H.J.Res. 86, H.Res. 230, H.R. 1754, H.R. 1868, H.R. 2520, H.R. 3175) and transparency (S. 228, H.R. 288). Separately, legislation (S. 993) to nullify the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order has also been introduced. The FCC\u2019s move to adopt the 2017 Order has reopened the debate over whether Congress should consider a measure to amend existing law to provide greater regulatory stability and guidance to the FCC. Whether Congress will choose to address more comprehensive legislation to amend the 1934 Communications Act, to provide a broad-based regulatory framework, remains to be seen.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R40616", "sha1": "63636de21a957e75b0a4328588ab88a06a23f9cc", "filename": "files/20171214_R40616_63636de21a957e75b0a4328588ab88a06a23f9cc.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R40616", "sha1": "e5deffc6ea560a8d738817d93c0594a8a456d1f4", "filename": "files/20171214_R40616_e5deffc6ea560a8d738817d93c0594a8a456d1f4.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4871, "name": "Telecommunications & Internet Policy" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 575889, "date": "2017-11-22", "retrieved": "2017-11-30T14:48:47.834431", "title": "The Net Neutrality Debate: Access to Broadband Networks", "summary": "As congressional policymakers continue to debate telecommunications reform, a major discussion point revolves around what approach should be taken to ensure unfettered access to the Internet. The move to place restrictions on the owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet, to ensure equal access and nondiscriminatory treatment, is referred to as \u201cnet neutrality.\u201d While there is no single accepted definition of \u201cnet neutrality,\u201d most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network. \nThe Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in its February 26, 2015, open meeting voted 3-2, along party lines, to adopt new open Internet rules and released these rules on March 12, 2015. One of the most controversial aspects of the rules is the decision to reclassify broadband Internet access service as telecommunications service under Title II, thereby subjecting Internet service providers to a more stringent regulatory framework. With limited exceptions, the rules went into effect June 12, 2015. Various parties challenged the legality of the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in a June 14, 2016, ruling, voted (2-1) to uphold the legality of all aspects of the 2015 FCC Order. A petition for full U.S. Appeals Court review was denied and parties have petitioned for U.S. Supreme Court review. \nThe FCC\u2019s May 18, 2017, adoption (2-1) of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to reexamine the rules adopted in 2015, with an eye to considering a less regulatory approach, has once again opened up the debate over what the appropriate framework is to ensure an open Internet. Reaction to this proposal has been mixed. Some see the current FCC rules as regulatory overreach and welcome a more \u201clight-touch\u201d approach, which they feel will stimulate broadband investment, deployment, and innovation. Others fully support the current 2015 regulations and feel that their modification will result in a concentration of power to the detriment of content, services, and applications providers, as well as consumers, and refute the claim that these regulations have had a negative impact on broadband investment, expansion, or innovation. The draft Order is currently under circulation to the commissioners with a vote by the full commission tentatively scheduled for December 14, 2017.\nTo date, congressional action in the 115th Congress has focused on two aspects of the current rules: privacy (S.J.Res. 34, S. 878, S. 964, H.J.Res. 86, H.Res. 230, H.R. 1754, H.R. 1868, H.R. 2520, H.R. 3175) and transparency (S. 228, H.R. 288). Separately, legislation (S. 993) to nullify the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order has also been introduced. The FCC\u2019s move to reexamine its existing open Internet rules has reopened the debate over whether Congress should consider a more comprehensive measure to amend existing law to provide greater regulatory stability and guidance to the FCC. Whether Congress will choose to address more comprehensive legislation to amend the 1934 Communications Act, to provide a broad-based framework for such regulation, remains to be seen.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R40616", "sha1": "1dc8395dbe9bdf66bcbbf25ef8e83e7835dcc6c7", "filename": "files/20171122_R40616_1dc8395dbe9bdf66bcbbf25ef8e83e7835dcc6c7.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R40616", "sha1": "9e50eca1c49c1bdb914094ad70748060a47b56e0", "filename": "files/20171122_R40616_9e50eca1c49c1bdb914094ad70748060a47b56e0.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4871, "name": "Telecommunications & Internet Policy" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 574544, "date": "2017-10-17", "retrieved": "2017-10-24T13:17:03.934213", "title": "The Net Neutrality Debate: Access to Broadband Networks", "summary": "As congressional policymakers continue to debate telecommunications reform, a major discussion point revolves around what approach should be taken to ensure unfettered access to the Internet. The move to place restrictions on the owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet, to ensure equal access and nondiscriminatory treatment, is referred to as \u201cnet neutrality.\u201d While there is no single accepted definition of \u201cnet neutrality,\u201d most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network. \nThe Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in its February 26, 2015, open meeting voted 3-2, along party lines, to adopt new open Internet rules and released these rules on March 12, 2015. One of the most controversial aspects of the rules is the decision to reclassify broadband Internet access service as telecommunications service under Title II, thereby subjecting Internet service providers to a more stringent regulatory framework. With limited exceptions, the rules went into effect June 12, 2015. Various parties challenged the legality of the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in a June 14, 2016, ruling, voted (2-1) to uphold the legality of all aspects of the 2015 FCC Order. A petition for full U.S. Appeals Court court review was denied and parties have petitioned for U.S. Supreme Court review. \nThe FCC\u2019s May 18, 2017, adoption (2-1) of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to reexamine the rules adopted in 2015, with an eye to considering a less regulatory approach, has once again opened up the debate over what the appropriate framework is to ensure an open Internet. Reaction to this proposal has been mixed. Some see the current FCC rules as regulatory overreach and welcome a more \u201clight-touch\u201d approach, which they feel will stimulate broadband investment, deployment, and innovation. Others fully support the current 2015 regulations and feel that their modification will result in a concentration of power to the detriment of content, services, and applications providers, as well as consumers, and refute the claim that these regulations have had a negative impact on broadband investment, expansion, or innovation.\nTo date, congressional action in the 115th Congress has focused on two aspects of the current rules: privacy (S.J.Res. 34, S. 878, S. 964, H.J.Res. 86, H.Res. 230, H.R. 1754, H.R. 1868, H.R. 2520, H.R. 3175) and transparency (S. 228, H.R. 288). Separately, legislation (S. 993) to nullify the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order has also been introduced. The FCC\u2019s move to reexamine its existing open Internet rules has reopened the debate over whether Congress should consider a more comprehensive measure to amend existing law to provide greater regulatory stability and guidance to the FCC. Whether Congress will choose to address more comprehensive legislation to amend the 1934 Communications Act, to provide a broad-based framework for such regulation, remains to be seen.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R40616", "sha1": "d632f32332ca97d1ecf6ae92babd569c4c6c0133", "filename": "files/20171017_R40616_d632f32332ca97d1ecf6ae92babd569c4c6c0133.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R40616", "sha1": "70dfefbb9e21683be2129450922d56baf6b8d150", "filename": "files/20171017_R40616_70dfefbb9e21683be2129450922d56baf6b8d150.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4871, "name": "Telecommunications & Internet Policy" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 465350, "date": "2017-09-08", "retrieved": "2017-10-02T22:30:41.614345", "title": "The Net Neutrality Debate: Access to Broadband Networks", "summary": "As congressional policymakers continue to debate telecommunications reform, a major discussion point revolves around what approach should be taken to ensure unfettered access to the Internet. The move to place restrictions on the owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet, to ensure equal access and nondiscriminatory treatment, is referred to as \u201cnet neutrality.\u201d While there is no single accepted definition of \u201cnet neutrality,\u201d most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network. \nThe Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in its February 26, 2015, open meeting voted 3-2, along party lines, to adopt new open Internet rules and released these rules on March 12, 2015. One of the most controversial aspects of the rules is the decision to reclassify broadband Internet access service as telecommunications service under Title II, thereby subjecting Internet service providers to a more stringent regulatory framework. With limited exceptions, the rules went into effect June 12, 2015. Various parties challenged the legality of the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in a June 14, 2016, ruling, voted (2-1) to uphold the legality of all aspects of the 2015 FCC Order. A petition for full court review was denied, leaving the next legal option a petition for U.S. Supreme Court review. \nThe FCC\u2019s May 18, 2017, adoption (2-1) of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to reexamine the rules adopted in 2015, with an eye to considering a less regulatory approach, has once again opened up the debate over what the appropriate framework is to ensure an open Internet. Reaction to this proposal has been mixed. Some see the current FCC rules as regulatory overreach and welcome a more \u201clight-touch\u201d approach, which they feel will stimulate broadband investment, deployment, and innovation. Others fully support the current 2015 regulations and feel that their modification will result in a concentration of power to the detriment of content, services, and applications providers, as well as consumers, and refute the claim that these regulations have had a negative impact on broadband investment, expansion, or innovation.\nTo date, congressional action in the 115th Congress has focused on two aspects of the current rules: privacy (S.J.Res. 34, S. 878, S. 964, H.J.Res. 86, H.Res. 230, H.R. 1754, H.R. 1868, H.R. 2520, H.R. 3175) and transparency (S. 228, H.R. 288). Separately, legislation (S. 993) to nullify the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order has also been introduced. The FCC\u2019s move to reexamine its existing open Internet rules has reopened the debate over whether Congress should consider a more comprehensive measure to amend existing law to provide greater regulatory stability and guidance to the FCC. Whether Congress will choose to address more comprehensive legislation to amend the 1934 Communications Act, to provide a broad-based framework for such regulation, remains to be seen.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R40616", "sha1": "2aa630dc7299fcf109cf3b916211c0397b49dce3", "filename": "files/20170908_R40616_2aa630dc7299fcf109cf3b916211c0397b49dce3.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R40616", "sha1": "c815338fdf9105e8e8600d0e2d7c58d14d03d480", "filename": "files/20170908_R40616_c815338fdf9105e8e8600d0e2d7c58d14d03d480.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4871, "name": "Telecommunications & Internet Policy" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 463365, "date": "2017-08-15", "retrieved": "2017-08-21T14:20:10.361546", "title": "The Net Neutrality Debate: Access to Broadband Networks", "summary": "As congressional policymakers continue to debate telecommunications reform, a major discussion point revolves around what approach should be taken to ensure unfettered access to the Internet. The move to place restrictions on the owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet, to ensure equal access and nondiscriminatory treatment, is referred to as \u201cnet neutrality.\u201d While there is no single accepted definition of \u201cnet neutrality,\u201d most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network. \nThe Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in its February 26, 2015, open meeting voted 3-2, along party lines, to adopt new open Internet rules and released these rules on March 12, 2015. One of the most controversial aspects of the rules is the decision to reclassify broadband Internet access service as telecommunications service under Title II, thereby subjecting Internet service providers to a more stringent regulatory framework. With limited exceptions, the rules went into effect June 12, 2015. Various parties challenged the legality of the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in a June 14, 2016, ruling, voted (2-1) to uphold the legality of all aspects of the 2015 FCC Order. A petition for full court review was denied, leaving the next legal option a petition for U.S. Supreme Court review. \nThe FCC\u2019s May 18, 2017, adoption (2-1) of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to reexamine the rules adopted in 2015, with an eye to considering a less regulatory approach, has once again opened up the debate over what the appropriate framework is to ensure an open Internet. Reaction to this proposal has been mixed. Some see the current FCC rules as regulatory overreach and welcome a more \u201clight-touch\u201d approach, which they feel will stimulate broadband investment, deployment, and innovation. Others fully support the current 2015 regulations and feel that their modification will result in a concentration of power to the detriment of content, services, and applications providers, as well as consumers, and refute the claim that these regulations have had a negative impact on broadband investment, expansion, or innovation.\nTo date, congressional action in the 115th Congress has focused on two aspects of the current rules: privacy (S.J.Res. 34, S. 878, S. 964, H.J.Res. 86, H.Res. 230, H.R. 1754, H.R. 1868, H.R. 2520, H.R. 3175) and transparency (S. 228, H.R. 288). Separately, legislation (S. 993) to nullify the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order has also been introduced. The FCC\u2019s move to reexamine its existing open Internet rules has reopened the debate over whether Congress should consider a more comprehensive measure to amend existing law to provide greater regulatory stability and guidance to the FCC. Whether Congress will choose to address more comprehensive legislation to amend the 1934 Communications Act, to provide a broad-based framework for such regulation, remains to be seen.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R40616", "sha1": "e3e681ffbf246c50b4d2b4f53cec3f345d7a91b6", "filename": "files/20170815_R40616_e3e681ffbf246c50b4d2b4f53cec3f345d7a91b6.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R40616", "sha1": "e473435425297ebdf53164618ebc21f112d6da07", "filename": "files/20170815_R40616_e473435425297ebdf53164618ebc21f112d6da07.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4871, "name": "Telecommunications & Internet Policy" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 461690, "date": "2017-06-01", "retrieved": "2017-06-07T15:31:14.491010", "title": "The Net Neutrality Debate: Access to Broadband Networks", "summary": "As congressional policymakers continue to debate telecommunications reform, a major discussion point revolves around what approach should be taken to ensure unfettered access to the Internet. The move to place restrictions on the owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet, to ensure equal access and nondiscriminatory treatment, is referred to as \u201cnet neutrality.\u201d While there is no single accepted definition of \u201cnet neutrality,\u201d most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network. \nThe Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in its February 26, 2015, open meeting voted 3-2, along party lines, to adopt new open Internet rules and released these rules on March 12, 2015. One of the most controversial aspects of the rules is the decision to reclassify broadband Internet access service as telecommunications service under Title II, thereby subjecting Internet service providers to a more stringent regulatory framework. With limited exceptions, the rules went into effect June 12, 2015. Various parties challenged the legality of the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in a June 14, 2016, ruling, voted (2-1) to uphold the legality of all aspects of the 2015 FCC Order. A petition for full court review was denied, leaving the next legal option a petition for U.S. Supreme Court review. \nThe FCC\u2019s May 18, 2017, adoption (2-1) of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to reexamine the rules adopted in 2015, with an eye to considering a less regulatory approach, has once again opened up the debate over what the appropriate framework is to ensure an open Internet. Reaction to this proposal has been mixed. Some see the current FCC rules as regulatory overreach and welcome a more \u201clight-touch\u201d approach which they feel will stimulate broadband investment, deployment, and innovation. Others fully support the current 2015 regulations and feel that their modification will result in a concentration of power to the detriment of content, services, and applications providers, as well as consumers, and refute the claim that these regulations have had a negative impact on broadband investment, expansion, or innovation.\nTo date, congressional action in the 115th Congress has focused on two aspects of the current rules: privacy (S.J.Res. 34, S. 878, S. 964, H.J.Res. 86, H.Res. 230, H.R. 1754, H.R. 1868, H.R. 2520) and transparency (S. 228, H.R. 288). Separately, legislation (S. 993) to nullify the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order has also been introduced. The FCC\u2019s move to reexamine its existing open Internet rules has reopened the debate over whether Congress should consider a more comprehensive measure to amend existing law to provide greater regulatory stability and guidance to the FCC. Whether Congress will choose to address more comprehensive legislation to amend the 1934 Communications Act, to provide a broad-based framework for such regulation, remains to be seen.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R40616", "sha1": "59e5e4861fb305ce674e5e6558ca2e6c53048296", "filename": "files/20170601_R40616_59e5e4861fb305ce674e5e6558ca2e6c53048296.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R40616", "sha1": "ecd79a5789a4f4b7897567485a2fa23216c394dd", "filename": "files/20170601_R40616_ecd79a5789a4f4b7897567485a2fa23216c394dd.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4871, "name": "Telecommunications & Internet Policy" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 461338, "date": "2017-05-18", "retrieved": "2017-05-24T16:18:39.699216", "title": "The Net Neutrality Debate: Access to Broadband Networks", "summary": "As congressional policymakers continue to debate telecommunications reform, a major discussion point revolves around what approach should be taken to ensure unfettered access to the Internet. The move to place restrictions on the owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet, to ensure equal access and nondiscriminatory treatment, is referred to as \u201cnet neutrality.\u201d While there is no single accepted definition of \u201cnet neutrality,\u201d most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network. \nThe Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in its February 26, 2015, open meeting voted 3-2, along party lines, to adopt new open Internet rules and released these rules on March 12, 2015. One of the most controversial aspects of the rules is the decision to reclassify broadband Internet access service as telecommunications service under Title II, thereby subjecting Internet service providers to a more stringent regulatory framework. With limited exceptions, the rules went into effect June 12, 2015. Various parties challenged the legality of the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in a June 14, 2016, ruling, voted (2-1) to uphold the legality of all aspects of the 2015 FCC Order. A petition for full court review was denied, leaving the next legal option a petition for U.S. Supreme Court review. \nThe FCC\u2019s May 18, 2017, adoption (2-1) of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to reexamine the rules adopted in 2015, with an eye to considering a less regulatory approach, has once again opened up the debate over what the appropriate framework is to ensure an open Internet. Reaction to this proposal has been mixed. Some see the current FCC rules as regulatory overreach and welcome a more \u201clight-touch\u201d approach which they feel will stimulate broadband investment, deployment, and innovation. Others fully support the current 2015 regulations and feel that their modification will result in a concentration of power to the detriment of content, services, and applications providers, as well as consumers, and refute the claim that these regulations have had a negative impact on broadband investment, expansion, or innovation.\nTo date, congressional action in the 115th Congress has focused on two aspects of the current rules: privacy (S.J.Res. 34, S. 878, S. 964, H.J.Res. 86, H.Res. 230, H.R. 1754, H.R. 1868) and transparency (S. 228, H.R. 288). Separately, legislation (S. 993) to nullify the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order has also been introduced. The FCC\u2019s move to reexamine its existing open Internet rules has reopened the debate over whether Congress should consider a more comprehensive measure to amend existing law to provide greater regulatory stability and guidance to the FCC. Whether Congress will choose to address more comprehensive legislation to amend the 1934 Communications Act, to provide a broad-based framework for such regulation, remains to be seen.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R40616", "sha1": "2843a8a37f4c18ceae1e4efb2658175e93a9d0a1", "filename": "files/20170518_R40616_2843a8a37f4c18ceae1e4efb2658175e93a9d0a1.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R40616", "sha1": "56d7e8f4bb62f61ec19f8848e7cbc7f5f4d34229", "filename": "files/20170518_R40616_56d7e8f4bb62f61ec19f8848e7cbc7f5f4d34229.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4871, "name": "Telecommunications & Internet Policy" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 460875, "date": "2017-05-02", "retrieved": "2017-05-09T15:00:05.180529", "title": "The Net Neutrality Debate: Access to Broadband Networks", "summary": "As congressional policymakers continue to debate telecommunications reform, a major discussion point revolves around what approach should be taken to ensure unfettered access to the Internet. The move to place restrictions on the owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet, to ensure equal access and nondiscriminatory treatment, is referred to as \u201cnet neutrality.\u201d While there is no single accepted definition of \u201cnet neutrality,\u201d most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network. \nThe Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in its February 26, 2015, open meeting voted 3-2, along party lines, to adopt new open Internet rules and released these rules on March 12, 2015. One of the most controversial aspects of the rules is the decision to reclassify broadband Internet access service as telecommunications service under Title II, thereby subjecting Internet service providers to a more stringent regulatory framework. With limited exceptions, the rules went into effect June 12, 2015. Various parties challenged the legality of the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in a June 14, 2016, ruling, voted (2-1) to uphold the legality of all aspects of the 2015 FCC Order. A petition for full court review was denied, leaving the next legal option a petition for U.S. Supreme Court review. \nThe announcement that FCC Chairman Pai offered a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to reexamine the rules adopted in 2015, with an eye to considering a less regulatory approach, has once again opened up the debate over what the appropriate framework is to ensure an open Internet. Reaction to this draft proposal has been mixed. Some see the current FCC rules as regulatory overreach and welcome a more \u201clight-touch\u201d approach which they feel will stimulate broadband investment, deployment, and innovation. Others fully support the current 2015 regulations and feel that their modification will result in a concentration of power to the detriment of content, services, and applications providers, as well as consumers, and refute the claim that these regulations have had a negative impact on broadband investment, expansion, or innovation.\nTo date, congressional action in the 115th Congress has focused on two aspects of the current rules: privacy (S.J.Res. 34, S. 878, S. 964, H.J.Res. 86, H.Res. 230, H.R. 1754, H.R. 1868) and transparency (S. 228, H.R. 288). Separately, legislation (S. 993) to nullify the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order has also been introduced. The FCC\u2019s move to reexamine its existing open Internet rules has reopened the debate over whether Congress should consider a more comprehensive measure to amend existing law to provide greater regulatory stability and guidance to the FCC. Whether Congress will choose to address more comprehensive legislation to amend the 1934 Communications Act, to provide a broad-based framework for such regulation, remains to be seen.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R40616", "sha1": "1f916d60d9afe62fc710304868168351692a9cae", "filename": "files/20170502_R40616_1f916d60d9afe62fc710304868168351692a9cae.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R40616", "sha1": "c14faa37db003e00b9b39cfc16eda65b42544000", "filename": "files/20170502_R40616_c14faa37db003e00b9b39cfc16eda65b42544000.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4871, "name": "Telecommunications & Internet Policy" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 453481, "date": "2016-06-15", "retrieved": "2016-11-28T22:04:22.522110", "title": "Access to Broadband Networks: The Net Neutrality Debate", "summary": "As congressional policymakers continue to debate telecommunications reform, a major discussion point revolves around what approach should be taken to ensure unfettered access to the Internet. The move to place restrictions on the owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet, to ensure equal access and nondiscriminatory treatment, is referred to as \u201cnet neutrality.\u201d While there is no single accepted definition of \u201cnet neutrality,\u201d most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network. \nA major focus in the debate is concern over whether the current framework is sufficient for policymakers to enable them to take the necessary steps to ensure access to the Internet for content, services, and applications providers, as well as consumers. Some look to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to address this issue using current provisions in the 1934 Communications Act to protect the marketplace from potential abuses that could threaten the net neutrality concept. Others feel that existing laws are outdated and limited, cannot be used to establish regulations to address current issues, and furthermore will not stand up to court review. They advocate that the FCC should look to Congress for guidance to amend current law to update FCC authority before action is taken. Still others contend that existing laws and policies are sufficient to deal with potential anti-competitive behavior and that additional regulations would have negative effects on the expansion and future development of the Internet. Ten measures (S. 40, S. 2283, S. 2602, S.J.Res. 14, H.R. 196, H.R. 279, H.R. 1212, H.R. 2666, H.R. 4596, and H.J.Res. 42) addressing broadband regulation have been introduced in the 114th Congress. Amended versions of H.R. 4596 and H.R. 2666 passed the House on March 16, 2016, and April 15, 2016, respectively. Draft legislation has been the subject of hearings, held on January 21, 2015, in the Senate Commerce Committee and the House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology. Additional hearings on this issue have been held in both the House and the Senate.\nThe January 2014 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit (Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, D.C. Cir., No.11-1355) upholding the Federal Communications Commission\u2019s (FCC\u2019s) authority to use Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to regulate broadband providers, but striking down the specific anti-blocking and nondiscrimination rules of the FCC\u2019s 2010 Open Internet Order, has focused attention on the issue. In response to the court remand the FCC on May 15, 2014, adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, to seek comment \u201con how best to protect and promote an open Internet.\u201d The release on November 10, 2014, of a statement by President Obama urging the FCC to adopt regulations to reclassify Internet access services as telecommunications services to be regulated under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act once again focused attention on the debate. The FCC in its February 26, 2015, open meeting voted 3-2, along party lines, to adopt new open Internet rules and released these rules on March 12, 2015. With limited exceptions, the rules went into effect June 12, 2015. Various parties challenged the legality of the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in a June 14, 2016, ruling, voted (2-1) to uphold the legality of all aspects the 2015 FCC Order. It is anticipated that the issue of access to broadband networks will be of continued interest to policymakers.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R40616", "sha1": "e0614c9a734247666b87083346c994a18432ad5b", "filename": "files/20160615_R40616_e0614c9a734247666b87083346c994a18432ad5b.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R40616", "sha1": "bfefa32a03238a4b5a8aef664c142cc5202a050c", "filename": "files/20160615_R40616_bfefa32a03238a4b5a8aef664c142cc5202a050c.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4871, "name": "Telecommunications & Internet Policy" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 451843, "date": "2016-04-15", "retrieved": "2016-05-24T19:21:08.831941", "title": "Access to Broadband Networks: The Net Neutrality Debate", "summary": "As congressional policymakers continue to debate telecommunications reform, a major discussion point revolves around what approach should be taken to ensure unfettered access to the Internet. The move to place restrictions on the owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet, to ensure equal access and nondiscriminatory treatment, is referred to as \u201cnet neutrality.\u201d While there is no single accepted definition of \u201cnet neutrality,\u201d most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network. \nA major focus in the debate is concern over whether the current framework is sufficient for policymakers to enable them to take the necessary steps to ensure access to the Internet for content, services, and applications providers, as well as consumers. Some look to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to address this issue using current provisions in the 1934 Communications Act to protect the marketplace from potential abuses that could threaten the net neutrality concept. Others feel that existing laws are outdated and limited, cannot be used to establish regulations to address current issues, and furthermore will not stand up to court review. They advocate that the FCC should look to Congress for guidance to amend current law to update FCC authority before action is taken. Still others contend that existing laws and policies are sufficient to deal with potential anti-competitive behavior and that additional regulations would have negative effects on the expansion and future development of the Internet. Ten measures (S. 40, S. 2283, S. 2602, S.J.Res. 14, H.R. 196, H.R. 279, H.R. 1212, H.R. 2666, H.R. 4596, and H.J.Res. 42) addressing broadband regulation have been introduced in the 114th Congress. Amended versions of H.R. 4596 and H.R. 2666 passed the House on March 16, 2016, and April 15, 2016, respectively. Draft legislation has been the subject of hearings, held on January 21, 2015, in the Senate Commerce Committee and the House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology. Additional hearings on this issue have been held in both the House and the Senate.\nThe January 2014 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit (Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, D.C. Cir., No.11-1355) upholding the Federal Communications Commission\u2019s (FCC\u2019s) authority to use Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to regulate broadband providers, but striking down the specific anti-blocking and nondiscrimination rules of the FCC\u2019s 2010 Open Internet Order, has focused attention on the issue. In response to the court remand the FCC on May 15, 2014, adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, to seek comment \u201con how best to protect and promote an open Internet.\u201d The release on November 10, 2014, of a statement by President Obama urging the FCC to adopt regulations to reclassify Internet access services as telecommunications services to be regulated under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act once again focused attention on the debate. The FCC in its February 26, 2015, open meeting voted 3-2, along party lines, to adopt new open Internet rules and released these rules on March 12, 2015. With limited exceptions, the rules went into effect June 12, 2015. Various parties have challenged the legality of the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order, with appeals consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. A decision is still pending. It is anticipated that the issue of access to broadband networks will be of continued interest to policymakers.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R40616", "sha1": "cba02a36de268d459240e5012fe06c0d5d07d3cc", "filename": "files/20160415_R40616_cba02a36de268d459240e5012fe06c0d5d07d3cc.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R40616", "sha1": "710a515c047afe0807bbfe4694acfda06d26bc9b", "filename": "files/20160415_R40616_710a515c047afe0807bbfe4694acfda06d26bc9b.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 2111, "name": "Telecommunications and Media Convergence" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 451559, "date": "2016-04-07", "retrieved": "2016-04-12T15:43:36.262388", "title": "Access to Broadband Networks: The Net Neutrality Debate", "summary": "As congressional policymakers continue to debate telecommunications reform, a major discussion point revolves around what approach should be taken to ensure unfettered access to the Internet. The move to place restrictions on the owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet, to ensure equal access and nondiscriminatory treatment, is referred to as \u201cnet neutrality.\u201d While there is no single accepted definition of \u201cnet neutrality,\u201d most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network. \nA major focus in the debate is concern over whether the current framework is sufficient for policymakers to enable them to take the necessary steps to ensure access to the Internet for content, services, and applications providers, as well as consumers. Some look to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to address this issue using current provisions in the 1934 Communications Act to protect the marketplace from potential abuses that could threaten the net neutrality concept. Others feel that existing laws are outdated and limited, cannot be used to establish regulations to address current issues, and furthermore will not stand up to court review. They advocate that the FCC should look to Congress for guidance to amend current law to update FCC authority before action is taken. Still others contend that existing laws and policies are sufficient to deal with potential anti-competitive behavior and that additional regulations would have negative effects on the expansion and future development of the Internet. Ten measures (S. 40, S. 2283, S. 2602, S.J.Res. 14, H.R. 196, H.R. 279, H.R. 1212, H.R. 2666, H.R. 4596, and H.J.Res. 42) addressing broadband regulation have been introduced in the 114th Congress. Draft legislation has been the subject of hearings, held on January 21, 2015, in the Senate Commerce Committee and the House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology. Additional hearings on this issue have been held in both the House and the Senate.\nThe January 2014 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit (Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, D.C. Cir., No.11-1355) upholding the Federal Communications Commission\u2019s (FCC\u2019s) authority to use Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to regulate broadband providers, but striking down the specific anti-blocking and nondiscrimination rules of the FCC\u2019s 2010 Open Internet Order, has focused attention on the issue. In response to the court remand the FCC on May 15, 2014, adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, to seek comment \u201con how best to protect and promote an open Internet.\u201d The release on November 10, 2014, of a statement by President Obama urging the FCC to adopt regulations to reclassify Internet access services as telecommunications services to be regulated under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act once again focused attention on the debate. The FCC in its February 26, 2015, open meeting voted 3-2, along party lines, to adopt new open Internet rules and released these rules on March 12, 2015. With limited exceptions, the rules went into effect June 12, 2015. Various parties have challenged the legality of the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order, with appeals consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. A decision is still pending. It is anticipated that the issue of access to broadband networks will be of continued interest to policymakers.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R40616", "sha1": "d5d163fdfd76e2dbab476b76ae887ee4dea8a863", "filename": "files/20160407_R40616_d5d163fdfd76e2dbab476b76ae887ee4dea8a863.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R40616", "sha1": "bbf99f03a9a866c684a1a1ae0b7a6bf1e8f50ba6", "filename": "files/20160407_R40616_bbf99f03a9a866c684a1a1ae0b7a6bf1e8f50ba6.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 2111, "name": "Telecommunications and Media Convergence" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 451395, "date": "2016-03-30", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T16:50:49.189802", "title": "Access to Broadband Networks: The Net Neutrality Debate", "summary": "As congressional policymakers continue to debate telecommunications reform, a major discussion point revolves around what approach should be taken to ensure unfettered access to the Internet. The move to place restrictions on the owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet, to ensure equal access and nondiscriminatory treatment, is referred to as \u201cnet neutrality.\u201d While there is no single accepted definition of \u201cnet neutrality,\u201d most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network. \nA major focus in the debate is concern over whether the current framework is sufficient for policymakers to enable them to take the necessary steps to ensure access to the Internet for content, services, and applications providers, as well as consumers. Some look to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to address this issue using current provisions in the 1934 Communications Act to protect the marketplace from potential abuses that could threaten the net neutrality concept. Others feel that existing laws are outdated and limited, cannot be used to establish regulations to address current issues, and furthermore will not stand up to court review. They advocate that the FCC should look to Congress for guidance to amend current law to update FCC authority before action is taken. Still others contend that existing laws and policies are sufficient to deal with potential anti-competitive behavior and that additional regulations would have negative effects on the expansion and future development of the Internet. Ten measures (S. 40, S. 2283, S. 2602, S.J.Res. 14, H.R. 196, H.R. 279, H.R. 1212, H.R. 2666, H.R. 4596, and H.J.Res. 42) addressing broadband regulation have been introduced in the 114th Congress. Draft legislation has been the subject of hearings, held on January 21, 2015, in the Senate Commerce Committee and the House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology. Additional hearings on this issue have been held in both the House and the Senate.\nThe January 2014 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit (Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, D.C. Cir., No.11-1355) upholding the Federal Communications Commission\u2019s (FCC\u2019s) authority to use Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to regulate broadband providers, but striking down the specific anti-blocking and nondiscrimination rules of the FCC\u2019s 2010 Open Internet Order, has focused attention on the issue. In response to the court remand the FCC on May 15, 2014, adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, to seek comment \u201con how best to protect and promote an open Internet.\u201d The release on November 10, 2014, of a statement by President Obama urging the FCC to adopt regulations to reclassify Internet access services as telecommunications services to be regulated under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act once again focused attention on the debate. The FCC in its February 26, 2015, open meeting voted 3-2, along party lines, to adopt new open Internet rules and released these rules on March 12, 2015. With limited exceptions, the rules went into effect June 12, 2015. Various parties have challenged the legality of the FCC\u2019s 2015 Open Internet Order, with appeals consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. A decision is still pending. It is anticipated that the issue of access to broadband networks will be of continued interest to policymakers.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R40616", "sha1": "7d9d7f4fef8bf3013cd7ca8a93e81336ba7ee824", "filename": "files/20160330_R40616_7d9d7f4fef8bf3013cd7ca8a93e81336ba7ee824.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R40616", "sha1": "8fde38d14fe719c7fe3c37bf244402d35a43b2ca", "filename": "files/20160330_R40616_8fde38d14fe719c7fe3c37bf244402d35a43b2ca.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 2111, "name": "Telecommunications and Media Convergence" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc806563/", "id": "R40616_2015Jul01", "date": "2015-07-01", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Access to Broadband Networks: The Net Neutrality Debate", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150701_R40616_c1770195c2b0bc06bad4ad228446f3c8deb90628.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150701_R40616_c1770195c2b0bc06bad4ad228446f3c8deb90628.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc689350/", "id": "R40616_2015Jun12", "date": "2015-06-12", "retrieved": "2015-08-03T15:06:47", "title": "Access to Broadband Networks: The Net Neutrality Debate", "summary": "This report discusses the current debate over \"net neutrality.\" While there is no single accepted definition of \"net neutrality,\" most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150612_R40616_abc3f95962e41b632d7140c2c0387553bd6ff8f2.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150612_R40616_abc3f95962e41b632d7140c2c0387553bd6ff8f2.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Telecommunication policy", "name": "Telecommunication policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Internet", "name": "Internet" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Internet service providers", "name": "Internet service providers" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc807457/", "id": "R40616_2015May07", "date": "2015-05-07", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Access to Broadband Networks: The Net Neutrality Debate", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150507_R40616_c02b6f28492d6297507b5ffc3cb91c5383e1ef96.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150507_R40616_c02b6f28492d6297507b5ffc3cb91c5383e1ef96.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc505574/", "id": "R40616_2015Apr16", "date": "2015-04-16", "retrieved": "2015-05-29T05:37:21", "title": "Access to Broadband Networks: The Net Neutrality Debate", "summary": "This report discusses the current debate over \"net neutrality.\" While there is no single accepted definition of \"net neutrality,\" most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150416_R40616_cb3ef8ab8cfce1e4f498a6f014317b5898f3345a.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150416_R40616_cb3ef8ab8cfce1e4f498a6f014317b5898f3345a.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Telecommunication policy", "name": "Telecommunication policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Internet", "name": "Internet" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Internet service providers", "name": "Internet service providers" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc505418/", "id": "R40616_2015Mar09", "date": "2015-03-09", "retrieved": "2015-05-29T05:37:21", "title": "Access to Broadband Networks: The Net Neutrality Debate", "summary": "This report discusses the current debate over \"net neutrality.\" While there is no single accepted definition of \"net neutrality,\" most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150309_R40616_890c3ff34aa2789503b5cc3ddd994d484125358e.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150309_R40616_890c3ff34aa2789503b5cc3ddd994d484125358e.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Telecommunication policy", "name": "Telecommunication policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Internet", "name": "Internet" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Internet service providers", "name": "Internet service providers" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc503673/", "id": "R40616_2015Feb26", "date": "2015-02-26", "retrieved": "2015-04-30T17:37:21", "title": "Access to Broadband Networks: The Net Neutrality Debate", "summary": "This report discusses the continued debate amongst congressional policymakers regarding telecommunications reform. A major point of the ongoing discussion is whether action is needed to ensure unfettered access to the Internet.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150226_R40616_ba4273b7d02c6e8767b45d9fdf70e95b03eeceab.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150226_R40616_ba4273b7d02c6e8767b45d9fdf70e95b03eeceab.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Telecommunication", "name": "Telecommunication" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Technology", "name": "Technology" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Internet", "name": "Internet" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "World Wide Web", "name": "World Wide Web" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Internet service providers", "name": "Internet service providers" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc501794/", "id": "R40616_2015Feb05", "date": "2015-02-05", "retrieved": "2015-03-30T22:03:27", "title": "Access to Broadband Networks: The Net Neutrality Debate", "summary": "This report discusses the current debate over \"net neutrality.\" While there is no single accepted definition of \"net neutrality,\" most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150205_R40616_1aa02ba6dc011bf716db59db299ec1dfdc17245f.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150205_R40616_1aa02ba6dc011bf716db59db299ec1dfdc17245f.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Telecommunication policy", "name": "Telecommunication policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Internet", "name": "Internet" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Internet service providers", "name": "Internet service providers" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc501905/", "id": "R40616_2015Jan15", "date": "2015-01-15", "retrieved": "2015-03-30T22:03:27", "title": "Access to Broadband Networks: The Net Neutrality Debate", "summary": "This report discusses the continued debate amongst congressional policymakers regarding telecommunications reform. A major point of the ongoing discussion is whether action is needed to ensure unfettered access to the Internet.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150115_R40616_3cdf5e8d3b790c01be732aba4be1841e2ea0b85d.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150115_R40616_3cdf5e8d3b790c01be732aba4be1841e2ea0b85d.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Telecommunication", "name": "Telecommunication" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Technology", "name": "Technology" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Internet", "name": "Internet" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "World Wide Web", "name": "World Wide Web" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Internet service providers", "name": "Internet service providers" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc463336/", "id": "R40616_2014Jul02", "date": "2014-07-02", "retrieved": "2014-12-05T09:57:41", "title": "Access to Broadband Networks: The Net Neutrality Debate", "summary": "This report discusses the current debate over \"net neutrality\". While there is no single accepted definition of \"net neutrality,\" most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20140702_R40616_069c68f1e3ae0b6554bf7d4568e9464d60802062.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20140702_R40616_069c68f1e3ae0b6554bf7d4568e9464d60802062.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Telecommunication policy", "name": "Telecommunication policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Internet", "name": "Internet" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Internet service providers", "name": "Internet service providers" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc463020/", "id": "R40616_2014Jun12", "date": "2014-06-12", "retrieved": "2014-12-05T09:57:41", "title": "Access to Broadband Networks: The Net Neutrality Debate", "summary": "This report discusses the continued debate amongst congressional policymakers regarding telecommunications reform. A major point of the ongoing discussion is whether action is needed to ensure unfettered access to the Internet.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20140612_R40616_139c40c6b716f01d66fb24b8ff3fbd9da9ecc566.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20140612_R40616_139c40c6b716f01d66fb24b8ff3fbd9da9ecc566.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Internet", "name": "Internet" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Internet service providers", "name": "Internet service providers" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "World Wide Web", "name": "World Wide Web" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc810090/", "id": "R40616_2014May21", "date": "2014-05-21", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Access to Broadband Networks: The Net Neutrality Debate", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20140521_R40616_da7d2638bd7d601d49284ef0fc275273faa8c6fb.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20140521_R40616_da7d2638bd7d601d49284ef0fc275273faa8c6fb.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc808174/", "id": "R40616_2014Mar12", "date": "2014-03-12", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Access to Broadband Networks: The Net Neutrality Debate", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20140312_R40616_f168cc8caa52e4191e967dd2e9cb1dad05f986e8.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20140312_R40616_f168cc8caa52e4191e967dd2e9cb1dad05f986e8.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc817753/", "id": "R40616_2013Jul22", "date": "2013-07-22", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Access to Broadband Networks: The Net Neutrality Debate", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20130722_R40616_8af54e962f9baa5dfe235bfbc2a33a7434f39712.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20130722_R40616_8af54e962f9baa5dfe235bfbc2a33a7434f39712.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc818524/", "id": "R40616_2012Sep17", "date": "2012-09-17", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Access to Broadband Networks: The Net Neutrality Debate", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20120917_R40616_795a3bcc2c09639691bf19d43f811304a7c50840.pdf" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc812109/", "id": "R40616_2012Feb21", "date": "2012-02-21", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Access to Broadband Networks: The Net Neutrality Debate", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20120221_R40616_49e9f55a7bc44fa35869528bc93b40b809e16a72.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20120221_R40616_49e9f55a7bc44fa35869528bc93b40b809e16a72.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc810148/", "id": "R40616_2011Oct25", "date": "2011-10-25", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Access to Broadband Networks: The Net Neutrality Debate", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20111025_R40616_2742c08ec5fd6270e906fca1fa4fcc9b6b1b0ed1.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20111025_R40616_2742c08ec5fd6270e906fca1fa4fcc9b6b1b0ed1.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc819896/", "id": "R40616_2011Jun30", "date": "2011-06-30", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Access to Broadband Networks: The Net Neutrality Debate", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20110630_R40616_e00983250775dcc3f5b1551809d4bc77e29f3d22.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20110630_R40616_e00983250775dcc3f5b1551809d4bc77e29f3d22.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc40076/", "id": "R40616_2011April25", "date": "2011-04-25", "retrieved": "2011-08-27T10:13:38", "title": "Access to Broadband Networks: The Net Neutrality Debate", "summary": "This report discusses the continued debate amongst congressional policymakers regarding telecommunications reform. A major point of the ongoing discussion is whether action is needed to ensure unfettered access to the Internet.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20110425_R40616_da7844bbf57588b0fab3f2b7b70ba51a4d62c9ab.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20110425_R40616_da7844bbf57588b0fab3f2b7b70ba51a4d62c9ab.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Telecommunication", "name": "Telecommunication" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Technology", "name": "Technology" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Internet", "name": "Internet" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "World Wide Web", "name": "World Wide Web" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Internet service providers", "name": "Internet service providers" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc816074/", "id": "R40616_2011Apr08", "date": "2011-04-08", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Access to Broadband Networks: The Net Neutrality Debate", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20110408_R40616_e2f1befe96de1c359dd3b8b1e9e225f7932054d0.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20110408_R40616_e2f1befe96de1c359dd3b8b1e9e225f7932054d0.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc33009/", "id": "R40616_2011Mar15", "date": "2011-03-15", "retrieved": "2011-04-28T13:31:19", "title": "Access to Broadband Networks: The Net Neutrality Debate", "summary": "This report discusses the continued debate amongst congressional policymakers regarding telecommunications reform. A major point of the ongoing discussion is whether action is needed to ensure unfettered access to the Internet.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20110315_R40616_8acf265d70d5ad3d2dcfa68c0cc3e330f9416abe.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20110315_R40616_8acf265d70d5ad3d2dcfa68c0cc3e330f9416abe.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Telecommunication", "name": "Telecommunication" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Technology", "name": "Technology" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Internet", "name": "Internet" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "World Wide Web", "name": "World Wide Web" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Internet service providers", "name": "Internet service providers" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc806301/", "id": "R40616_2011Mar11", "date": "2011-03-11", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Access to Broadband Networks: The Net Neutrality Debate", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20110311_R40616_81d4f1aa5388126152dec6b5a2959691d13f1145.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20110311_R40616_81d4f1aa5388126152dec6b5a2959691d13f1145.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc818087/", "id": "R40616_2010Aug11", "date": "2010-08-11", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Access to Broadband Networks: The Net Neutrality Debate", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20100811_R40616_f8996c6b44b489a98bd9d1abe11fcacc0b942b5f.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20100811_R40616_f8996c6b44b489a98bd9d1abe11fcacc0b942b5f.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc491287/", "id": "R40616_2010Jul07", "date": "2010-07-07", "retrieved": "2015-01-27T19:40:46", "title": "Access to Broadband Networks: The Net Neutrality Debate", "summary": "This report discusses the current debate over \"net neutrality.\" While there is no single accepted definition of \"net neutrality,\" most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20100707_R40616_857b5e8a22b5453fcff9ba7f88c98b4015c97683.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20100707_R40616_857b5e8a22b5453fcff9ba7f88c98b4015c97683.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Telecommunication policy", "name": "Telecommunication policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Internet", "name": "Internet" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Internet service providers", "name": "Internet service providers" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc491321/", "id": "R40616_2010May06", "date": "2010-05-06", "retrieved": "2015-01-27T19:40:46", "title": "Access to Broadband Networks: The Net Neutrality Debate", "summary": "This report discusses the current debate over \"net neutrality.\" While there is no single accepted definition of \"net neutrality,\" most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20100506_R40616_a69c2aa242271413734f01bcbe2f6b28bc9c8c69.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20100506_R40616_a69c2aa242271413734f01bcbe2f6b28bc9c8c69.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Telecommunication policy", "name": "Telecommunication policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Internet", "name": "Internet" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Internet service providers", "name": "Internet service providers" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc491661/", "id": "R40616_2010Apr14", "date": "2010-04-14", "retrieved": "2015-01-27T19:40:46", "title": "Access to Broadband Networks: The Net Neutrality Debate", "summary": "This report discusses the current debate over \"net neutrality.\" While there is no single accepted definition of \"net neutrality,\" most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20100414_R40616_1ca9cccfac94dd8d9ffe7fef4b940f139820db8a.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20100414_R40616_1ca9cccfac94dd8d9ffe7fef4b940f139820db8a.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Telecommunication policy", "name": "Telecommunication policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Internet", "name": "Internet" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Internet service providers", "name": "Internet service providers" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc806989/", "id": "R40616_2010Jan26", "date": "2010-01-26", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Access to Broadband Networks: The Net Neutrality Debate", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20100126_R40616_e9bb85aac27892ee7a7770651b8cc3915d805b55.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20100126_R40616_e9bb85aac27892ee7a7770651b8cc3915d805b55.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc821053/", "id": "R40616_2009Oct29", "date": "2009-10-29", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Access to Broadband Networks: The Net Neutrality Debate", "summary": "This report discusses the current debate over \"net neutrality.\" While there is no single accepted definition of \"net neutrality,\" most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20091029_R40616_96511cf45663e1810ecc99004f905e13596ad7c6.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20091029_R40616_96511cf45663e1810ecc99004f905e13596ad7c6.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Internet", "name": "Internet" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Internet service providers", "name": "Internet service providers" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Telecommunication policy", "name": "Telecommunication policy" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc808927/", "id": "R40616_2009Aug03", "date": "2009-08-03", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Access to Broadband Networks: The Net Neutrality Debate", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20090803_R40616_7c5b759989350d672eb7081e254aecaeab045336.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20090803_R40616_7c5b759989350d672eb7081e254aecaeab045336.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc689386/", "id": "R40616_2009Jun01", "date": "2009-06-01", "retrieved": "2015-08-03T15:06:47", "title": "Access to Broadband Networks: The Net Neutrality Debate", "summary": "This report discusses the current debate over \"net neutrality.\" While there is no single accepted definition of \"net neutrality,\" most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20090601_R40616_4974a6ace755888b420f02a668ae3d071489720e.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20090601_R40616_4974a6ace755888b420f02a668ae3d071489720e.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Telecommunication policy", "name": "Telecommunication policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Internet", "name": "Internet" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Internet service providers", "name": "Internet service providers" } ] } ], "topics": [] }