The rules proposed by the Commission are both necessary and narrow in scope. They focus on protecting subscribers from harms caused by the unique position occupied by broadband access providers. The rule thus would maintain the benefits of an open Internet not merely for subscribers, but for everyone using what has become critical infrastructure on which we all to some degree depend. Accordingly, while PIC concur with the conclusion in the NPRM that the Commission has more than adequate authority to adopt the proposed rules, PIC propose alternative theories of Commission authority more consistent with the purpose of those rules, linking the exercise of authority directly to the underlying transmission component of broadband access service. This narrower theory of Commission authority has the added advantage of addressing the concerns expressed by some that rules to preserve an open Internet must invariably confer power to regulate content. By placing the Commission’s exercise of authority clearly and unambiguously within the scope of Title I ancillary authority as ancillary to Title II due to the transmission component, as previously affirmed by the D.C. Circuit, the exercise of ancillary authority is this case will sit squarely within the traditional framework for information services, yet bounded by equally well-established First Amendment jurisprudence governing telecommunications.

The full comments can be downloaded as a PDF on the right.