������Ƶ

Yesterday, OTI filed urging the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to restore its authority to hold ISPs accountable for anti-consumer policies and behavior by reclassifying broadband internet access services as a Title II telecommunications service and reestablishing net neutrality protections across the United States. OTI’s comments urge the Commission to update its rules to address additional issues like “zero rating” and paid interconnection agreements, and to improve ISPs’ transparency to consumers about their broadband services.

More specifically, OTI—guided by its mission to ensure every community has equitable access to digital technology—has offered its perspective on a number of questions put forth by the Commission, urging the commission to:

1. Address the harms posed to consumers when BIAS providers demand paid interconnection agreements in order to deliver traffic to internet users on their networks, noting that the Commission already took steps in this direction in 2016 when reviewing the Charter-Time Warner Cable merger;
2. Apply the same rules to mobile broadband as to fixed at-home broadband service by re-classifying BIAS as a ‘commercial mobile radio service’ and updating underlying definitions of statutory terms;
3. Begin the process of requiring BIAS providers to contribute to the Universal Service Fund to support the FCC’s current and future universal service and affordability programs;
4. Clarify that any forbearance related to ‘rate regulation’ does not limit the Commission’s ability to study the price of service for purposes including, but not limited to determining availability and affordability of BIAS, measuring competition in the marketplace, or identifying discriminatory practices or behavior;
5. Restore and improve upon the robust transparency requirements that were discarded by the Pai Commission, and to improve Broadband Information Label requirements;
6. Restore the general conduct rule that gives the Commission the flexibility to identify and tackle new harms as they arise;
7. Draw clear lines that identify acceptable zero-rating practices; and
8. Restore the framework for non-BIAS Services outlined by the 2015 rules, and harmonize with the stronger rules since adopted by California and the EU that non-BIAS data service not negatively impact BIAS performance for others and that non-BIAS data optimization be “objectively necessary.”