Introduction & Summary
More than 20 million comments have been filed in response to the Restoring Internet Freedom notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) released by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission”) this past May, which proposes to undo significant portions of the 2015 Open Internet Order. In addition to those filed by us here at R Street Institute (“R Street”), many commenters filed detailed responses that attempted to engage with each of the substantive issues raised in the NPRM,4 and we appreciate the opportunity to respond to some of those comments here.
However, many others have filed comments that were brief, unresponsive and perhaps even fraudulent. These have swelled the docket to an unprecedented size — for the FCC or any other administrative agency. Accordingly, even with the recent deadline extension, it is practically impossible for interested parties like R Street to review and respond to all arguments raised in the initial round of comments. For this reason, we do not attempt to do so here. Rather, in these reply comments, we seek to do only two things: parse through the dueling narratives regarding the impact of Title II on infrastructure investment and clarify the proper roles that state and local authorities should play in broadband regulation going forward.