FCC rejects telecoms’ request to stay reclassification of broadband providers

The FCC has officially turned down requests to stay the pending Title II classification rules for wired and mobile broadband. The move comes on expectation of a wave of suits by telecom lobbying organisations over the issue.

Under Title II rules, wired and mobile broadband providers would be subject to more oversight and regulation to ensure consumer protection.

The new order formally rejecting the multiple requests to stay the reclassification was filed by Wireless Competition Bureau chief Julie Veach and Wireless Telecommunications Bureau chief Roger Sherman on Friday. The new order will take effect in the middle of next month.

FCC chairman Tom Wheeler expects the new rules and reclassification of internet access under Title II with specific changes for mobile and fixed-line broadband providers to withstand legal challenges, thanks to the increased powers of oversight granted by Title II classification.

These are far more extensive than the lack of oversight powers that formed the basis of the much weaker Open Internet Orders filed in 2004 and 2010. 

These were finally overturned after Verizon won a legal challenge against the FCC in 2012.

Meanwhile, according to commentators, telecom companies were adopting a strategy to slow down the new regulation process from taking effect. The court officially denied the stay in its latest ruling. According to the telecom companies because they had not opposed the three "bright-line" internet rules from the FCC's new Internet regulation, (no throttling, no paid prioritization, and no obstruction of legal content) the stay would not harm the public interest. The court did not agree.

The telecom companies' push against open internet is driven by fear that along with reclassification of the internet as a public utility, ISP's would be classified as "common carriers," subject to tighter government control, according to commentators.

According to the petitioning telecom companies "maintaining the status quo with respect to their own regulatory status [would] advance the public interest by providing regulatory continuity and stability and promoting investment."