NARUC regulators respond to scrapping of so-called ‘net neutrality’ regulations by U.S. FCC

The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners has issued the following statement in response to the Federal Communications Commission’s vote yesterday on “Internet Freedom” rules:

State regulators have long supported the concept of net neutrality. Since 2002, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners has supported policies that promote an open Internet. Although the order does maintain vital transparency requirements, today’s action by the Federal Communications Commission is an unfortunate step. Given this FCC action, it is past time for Congress to step in and bring certainty to this issue.

NARUC is a non-profit organization founded in 1889 whose members include the governmental agencies that are engaged in the regulation of utilities and carriers in the fifty States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. NARUC’s member agencies regulate telecommunications, energy, and water utilities. NARUC represents the interests of State public utility commissions before the three branches of the Federal government.

Source: National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners

MacDailyNews Take: Once again, as we wrote on Tuesday regarding the call by U.S. Senator John Thune (R-SD) for Congress to pass ‘net neutrality’ legislation:

There is a right way and a wrong way to do things. The former is harder, but lasting; the latter is quicker, but ephemeral.

Real net neutrality legislation is the solution to the FCC/FTC regulatory seesaw.

Republican senator calls on U.S. Congress to pass ‘net neutrality’ legislation – December 12, 2017
Millions of people post ‘net neutrality’ comments on FCC docket; many are fake – December 12, 2017
U.S. FCC rejects calls to delay vote to repeal so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules – December 5, 2017
Dear Aunt Sadie, please step back from the so-called ‘net neutrality’ ledge – November 27, 2017
U.S. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai: Killing Obama-era rules for so-called ‘net neutrality’ will set the internet free – November 22, 2017
U.S. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai: How the FCC can save the open internet – November 21, 2017
U.S. FCC plans total repeal of Obama-era rules for so-called ‘net neutrality’ – November 21, 2017
U.S. FCC plans December vote to kill so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules – November 16, 2017
Apple’s call for ‘strong’ net neutrality rules is a hint about the future of its business – September 1, 2017
Apple breaks their silence on ‘net neutrality,’ remains open to alternative sources of legal authority – August 31, 2017
Trump administration gives thumbs up to overturning FCC’s rules for so-called ‘net neutrality’ – July 19, 2017
]Apple’s deafening silence on so-called ‘net neutrality’ – July 14, 2017
FCC kicks off effort to roll back so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules – May 18, 2017
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai explains why he wants to scrap so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules – April 28, 2017
FCC Chief Ajit Pai develops plans to roll back so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules – April 7, 2017
U.S. FCC chairman wields weed whacker, takes first steps against so-called ‘net neutrality’ – February 3, 2017
How so-called ‘net neutrality’ will fare under President Trump – January 26, 2017
New FCC chairman Ajit Pai vows to take a ‘weed whacker’ to so-called ‘net neutrality’ – January 24, 2017
President Trump elevates Ajit Pai to FCC Chairman – January 23, 2017
Outgoing FCC chief Tom Wheeler offers final defense of so-called ‘net neutrality’ – January 13, 2017
Under President Trump, Obama ally Google may face policy setbacks, including roll back of so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules – November 18, 2016
Jeb Bush on FCC and so-called ‘net neutrality’ regulation: ‘One of the craziest ideas I’ve ever heard’ – March 8, 2015
Who loves the FCC’s overreach on so-called ‘net neutrality?’ Telecom lawyers – March 5, 2015


    1. In other news, Pai called for the repeal of the Sherman Act and the restoration of the Standard Oil Trust. “America was a better place when a single family controlled all our petroleum resources. They could ship their products on railroads all controlled by another trust on rails manufactured by the US Steel monopoly. MAGA!”


    1. That’s probably just your boyfriend you’re feeling.
      Internet speeds have continued to increase year after year with more and more data throughput in every major market, not only that but prices have been fairly stable during all the upgrading.

      Also, now that Netflix has outfitted most large systems with servers to stream the most popular movies locally the pipes leading to a city have been able to breathe a little more.

      Net Neuter-irrationality has done NOTHING to EVER to increase reliability and speed of the internet.

      1. Free market actions gave us the internet, period. All sorts of rules were only implemented recently.

        I would vote to let mfgrs & installers of high speed networks figure out what and how to do it without the slow, self-interested congressmen and lobbyists determining what is allowed and who is allowed to do something new.

        An article today noted Google using light to transmit high speed data in a more remote area of India. Would the US government ever allow it or would we want the US government to even have anything to say about it?

          1. What had been implemented that got shot down:

            No Blocking selected content
            No Throttling selected content
            No paid prioritization

            Ajit Pai is right: you can still do all those goofy things, but at what speed and at what cost?

  1. I think this is great.

    Generally, I am fearful of proponents saying a bill will do one thing when in reality, “after we see what is in the bill”, it turns out to be the opposite.

    My philosophy is to always vote “no” to new laws, Even the new tax laws. It seldom turns out the way they say it will. My taxes will go up. Someone else’s tax will go down. They just should have lowered the brackets and EVERYONE’s taxes would have gone down, guaranteed.

    With regards to net neutrality, although I have a hard time understanding it, the safe way to go is “NO” and I am glad it was reversed.

    Next step is to tear down these cable/internet monopolies and/or bypass them just like Uber, et al, is bypassing the old establishment taxis. It’s called innovation and the free market.

    1. The reality is these rules were not just put in place for the sake of making new rules.

      The ISPs had started double dipping Charging providers of content for their access to the internet, charging consumers for there access to the internet and then for good measure they started charging providers of content for providing access to the consumers who were already paying for access. So the rules were put in place as a reaction to the BAD practices of the ISPs.

      Now that they have been removed they will go right back to trying to double dip. And before you say that’s ok let them double charge Netflix as long as they leave me alone, if Netflix has pay eventually it gets passed on the the consumer.

  2. The leftists need to relax about the FCC’s removal of heavy-handed regulation they misleadingly refer to as “net neutrality.”

    Within 5 years, 5G will support 50 million U.S. homes or more. 5G will have the capability to compete directly against wireline technologies such as DSL and cable. With the advent of 5G, it will be increasingly easier for even small entities, like smaller WISPs, to deploy broadband in rural areas.

    The FCC’s recent actions set the stage ahead of the 5G rollout.

      1. Isn’t it amazing how we managed to get by with no innovation whatsoever for the 20 years of no net neutrality before that?

        So now it has gone from Al Gore inventing the internet to Obama inventing the “free” internet. What a bunch of leftist hooey!

    1. I have heard that 30% of US households have only one ISP to choose from. That’s why I think the reversal is great.

      For example: my friend who lives in farm country only had one choice until a cell tower went up. He now has two choices and opted for the new service from ATT (less expensive , it works, and faster). Wait till Verizon and others move in. I suspect this is the “bypass” I spoke of in my previous post.

      It’s also called innovation, competition, and the free market. The Internet is FREE again.

        1. He is getting things done, but don’t go on about him being our Beloved. That is overkill and should be saved for the official Anointing, if he should survive that long. If and when he becomes Caesar he will have to prove to me that his tiny hands are not indicative of his generative power. I’ve met too many men who were all talk and no action.

  3. The problem with deregulating Internet access (whether wired or via radio) is that both the wires and the radio spectrum are very limited channels by their very nature.

    Freedom of the press is exactly that; anyone can print something, and go on the street and hand it out (or sell it); there is no natural, practical limit to such activity. Competition is appropriate in this kind of situation.

    However, for wired Internet, an actual, physical medium must be connected to the user, and this connection takes place using wires which are run in public rights-of-way ostensibly for the benefit of all. For a new provider to run new wires to each and every potential user in an area might be doable on a limited basis, but if even as few as 5 more were to attempt to do so, the physical space on poles and in conduits would be quickly exhausted. A similar argument applies to wireless Internet; there is only so much spectrum. Provision of basic communications services is a natural monopoly (or duopoly), and as such requires regulation.

    The companies which have made the investment in such public accommodations (see the “Carterfone” decision) deserve a fair return on their investment, but they do not, for many reasons – which include national security – have complete control over what can be transmitted through their facilities, nor control over what kind of equipment may be used for communication via their facilities, so long as that equipment meets appropriate specifications.

    Thus, the carrier can only charge for the use of their facilities, and must provide access and transmission on an unbiased basis, because their business depends upon (a) the use of public right-of-way to exist in the first place, and (b) they are a public accommodation, and therefore do not have the right to discriminate among their users as regards preferential treatment based upon the content of the communications. (Obviously, speed of transmission is something they CAN provide based upon tiers of payment, but what is transmitted using that speed is not their purview.)

    I am no Obama fan, but I believe that both telephone service providers and internet service providers should provide “dumb pipes,” and charge only based upon AMOUNT of content, without regard to TYPE of content.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.