89–006 

116TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 116–34 

SAVE THE INTERNET ACT OF 2019 

APRIL 5, 2019.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. PALLONE, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 1644] 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred 

the bill (H.R. 1644) to restore the open internet order of the Federal Communications Commission, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that 

the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Amendment .............................................................................................................. 2 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 3 

Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 3 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 5 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 5 

Oversight Findings .................................................................................................. 20 

New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures ............. 20 

Federal Mandates Statement ................................................................................. 20 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 20 

Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................................ 20 

Committee Cost Estimate ....................................................................................... 20 

Earmark, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits ............................. 20 

Advisory Committee Statement .............................................................................. 21 

Applicability to Legislative Branch ........................................................................ 21 

Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation ...................................................... 21 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 22 

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 23 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
2 

AMENDMENT

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Save the Internet Act of 2019’’. 

SEC. 2. RESTORATION OF OPEN INTERNET ORDER. 

(a) REPEAL OF RULE.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order, and Order in the 

matter of restoring internet freedom that was adopted by the Commission on 

December 14, 2017 (FCC 17–166), shall have no force or effect. 

(2) PROHIBITION ON REISSUED RULE OR NEW RULE.—The Declaratory Ruling, 

Report and Order, and Order described in paragraph (1) may not be reissued 

in substantially the same form, and a new rule that is substantially the same 

as such Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order, and Order may not be issued, 

unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted after 

the date of the enactment of this Act. 

(b) RESTORATION OF REPEALED AND AMENDED RULES.—The following are restored 

as in effect on January 19, 2017: 

(1) The Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order in the 

matter of protecting and promoting the open internet that was adopted by the 

Commission on February 26, 2015 (FCC 15–24). 

(2) Part 8 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations. 

(3) Any other rule of the Commission that was amended or repealed by the 

Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order, and Order described in subsection (a)(1). 

(c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) COMMISSION.—The term ‘‘Commission’’ means the Federal Communications Commission. 

(2) RESTORED AS IN EFFECT ON JANUARY 19, 2017.—The term ‘‘restored as in 

effect on January 19, 2017’’ means, with respect to the Declaratory Ruling and 

Order described in subsection (b)(1), to permanently reinstate the rules and 

legal interpretations set forth in such Declaratory Ruling and Order (as in effect 

on January 19, 2017), including any decision (as in effect on such date) to apply 

or forbear from applying a provision of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 

U.S.C. 151 et seq.) or a regulation of the Commission. 

(3) RULE.—The term ‘‘rule’’ has the meaning given such term in section 804 

of title 5, United States Code. 

SEC. 3. EXCEPTION TO ENHANCEMENT TO TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO 

PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS AND NETWORK PRACTICES FOR SMALL BUSINESSES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The enhancements to the transparency rule relating to performance characteristics and network practices of the Commission under section 8.3 of 

title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, as described in paragraphs 165 through 184 

of the Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order in the matter 

of protecting and promoting the open internet that was adopted by the Commission 

February 26, 2015 (FCC 15–24), shall not apply to any small business. 

(b) SUNSET.—Subsection (a) shall not have any force or effect after the date that 

is 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

(c) REPORT BY FCC.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 

this Act, the Commission shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation of the Senate a report that contains the recommendations of the 

Commission (and data supporting such recommendations) regarding— 

(1) whether the exception provided by subsection (a) should be made permanent; and 

(2) whether the definition of the term ‘‘small business’’ for purposes of such 

exception should be modified from the definition in subsection (d)(3). 

(d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE.—The term ‘‘broadband Internet access service’’ has the meaning given such term in section 8.2 of title 47, Code 

of Federal Regulations. 

(2) COMMISSION.—The term ‘‘Commission’’ means the Federal Communications Commission. 

(3) SMALL BUSINESS.—The term ‘‘small business’’ means any provider of 

broadband Internet access service that has not more than 100,000 subscribers 

aggregated over all the provider’s affiliates. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
3 

1Federal Communications Commission, Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Report 

and Order, GN Docket No. 14–28, FCC 15–24, at ¶ 4 (rel. Mar. 12, 2015) (2015 Order). 2 Id. at ¶ 21. 3 Id. at ¶ 154. 4 Id. at ¶ 29. 5 Id. at ¶ 92. 6 Id. at ¶ 292. 7 Id. at ¶ 456–57 (noting the FCC’s application of Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act 

of 1996 and the FCC’s application, in part, of Section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934); 

See Federal Communications Commission, Connect America Fund, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WC Docket No. 10–90, FCC 11–161, at ¶ 66 (rel. Nov. 18, 

2011) (‘‘We also have independent authority under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act 

of 1996 to fund the deployment of broadband networks.’’); See Federal Communications Commission, Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Third Report and Order, Further Report 

and Order, and Order on Reconsideration, WC Docket No. 11–42, FCC 16–38, at ¶ 30–43, (rel. 

Apr. 27, 2016) (‘‘noting the FCC’s authority under Section 254 of the Communications Act of 

1934 and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to authorize the inclusion of 

broadband internet access service as a supported service in the Lifeline program’’). 8See 2015 Order at ¶ 456. 9See id. at ¶ 382 (noting, ‘‘there will be no rate regulation, no unbundling of last-mile facilities, no tariffing, and a carefully tailored application of only those Title II provisions found to 

directly further the public interest in an open Internet.’’). 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 1644, the ‘‘Save the Internet Act’’, was introduced on March 

8, 2019, by Rep. Doyle (D–PA), and referred to the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce. H.R. 1644, the ‘‘Save the Internet Act,’’ repeals the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Restoring 

Internet Freedom Order, restoring as of January 19, 2017, the 

FCC’s 2015 Net Neutrality Order, 47 Code of Federal Regulations 

Part 8, and any other rule that the Restoring Internet Freedom 

Order modified or repealed. This legislation would codify the FCC’s 

2015 Open Internet Order. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

In 2015, the FCC adopted carefully-tailored rules to prevent specific practices that are harmful to internet openness—blocking, 

throttling, and paid prioritization—and a strong standard of conduct designed to prevent the deployment of new practices that 

would harm Internet openness.1 The 2015 Order adopted protections preventing internet service providers (ISPs) from unreasonably interfering with, or unreasonably disadvantaging consumers’ 

access to the content of their choice (i.e., the ‘‘general conduct 

rule’’).2 The FCC also enhanced the disclosures required under its 

existing transparency rule,3 and included a complaint process for 

resolving interconnection disputes that implicate protections in the 

Communications Act.4 In doing so, the FCC applied all of these 

protections equally to mobile and wired broadband service.5

Through the Order, the FCC applied certain longstanding Commission authority to broadband internet access service, including 

Sections 201 and 202 of the Communications Act, giving the Commission authority to prevent unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory network practices.6 The FCC applied certain provisions to support and fund broadband access for low-income Americans, those 

living in rural areas, and those living with disabilities.7 Beyond 

specific, identified protections,8 the FCC opted for a light-touch regulatory regime by forbearing from applying the majority of common 

carrier provisions in the Communications Act, including provisions 

relating to rate setting and mandatory last-mile unbundling.9


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
4 

10 United States Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674, 689 (D.C. Cir. 2016). 11 Id. at 744. 12Supreme Court Won’t Hear Net Neutrality Challenges, New York Times (Nov. 5, 2018). 13Federal Communications Commission, Restoring Internet Freedom, Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order, and Order, WC Docket No. 17–108, FCC 17–166, (rel. Jan. 4, 2018) (RIF Order). 14 Id. at ¶ 239. 15 2015 Order at ¶ 15–24. 16 Compare 2015 Order at ¶ 468 with RIF Order at ¶ 21. 17 Compare 2015 Order at ¶ 478 with RIF Order at ¶ 21. 18 RIF Order at ¶ 268. 19 Broadband Groups Cut Capital Expenditure Despite Net Neutrality Win, Financial Times 

(Feb. 7, 2019). 

Opponents of these network neutrality protections challenged the 

2015 Order in court.10 In June 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the D.C. Circuit upheld the 2015 Order in its entirety.11 Last November, the Supreme Court declined a petition to review the case, 

which effectively validated the Circuit Court’s opinion.12

Subsequently, the FCC adopted a new order in December 2017, 

which took effect in May 2018 (RIF Order) that effectively repealed 

the 2015 Order.13 In the RIF Order, the FCC repealed its net neutrality protections, and, in the process, disclaimed many of its own 

authorities that have been central to supporting broadband access 

and adoption.14

The repeal of the 2015 Order has had broad implications for consumers and small businesses accessing the internet. By repealing 

the network neutrality protections, the FCC gave up its ability to 

stop broadband internet access providers from blocking, throttling, 

and pay-for-priority arrangements. It also gave up its ability to address future discriminatory, unreasonable, or unjust network practices.15 It further gave up authority to protect people with disabilities to ensure their access to functionally equivalent broadband 

service.16 The repeal also did away with provisions that ensure 

ISPs fair access to utility poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-ofway.17 Finally, the repeal undermined the FCC’s authority to fund 

rural broadband access and adoption efforts for low-income individuals by relinquishing some of the FCC’s key authorities for accelerating the deployment and adoption of broadband.18

In the past two years, the lack of FCC authority over broadband 

and strong network neutrality protections left consumers without 

redress and left ISPs free to implement practices contrary to the 

public interest. At the same time, the increased ISP broadband network investment that was a driving reason for the RIF Order failed 

to materialize.19 H.R. 1644 builds upon the common-sense work of 

the 2015 Order by restoring and thereby locking in place its network neutrality protections and forbearances. This legislation provides market certainty and ensures that the internet will remain 

free and open. 

COMMITTEE HEARINGS

For the purposes of section 103(i) of H. Res. 6 of the 116th Congress— 

(1) the following hearing was used to develop or consider 

H.R. 1644: 

The Subcommittee on Communications and Technology held a 

legislative hearing on March 12, 2019 to consider the H.R. 1644, 

the ‘‘Save the Internet Act’’ entitled ‘‘Legislating to Safeguard the 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
5 

Free and Open Internet.’’ The Subcommittee received testimony 

from: 

• Francella Ochillo, Vice President of Policy and General 

Counsel, National Hispanic Media Coalition; 

• Matt Wood, Vice President of Policy and General Counsel, 

Free Press Action; 

• Gregory Green, Chief Executive Officer, Fatbeam; and 

• Robert M. McDowell, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, 

Partner, Cooley LLP. 

(2) the following related hearings were held: 

The Subcommittee on Communications and Technology held a 

hearing on February 7, 2019, entitled ‘‘Preserving an Open Internet 

for Consumers, Small Businesses, and Free Speech.’’ At the hearing, the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology considered the effects of the 2017 repeal of the 2015 Order, and why restoring the 2015 Order will reduce uncertainty and promote free 

speech. The Subcommittee received testimony from: 

• Denelle Dixon, Chief Operating Officer, Mozilla; 

• Joseph Franell, Chief Executive Officer, Eastern Oregon 

Telecom; 

• Jessica Gonza ́lez, Vice President of Strategy and Senior 

Counsel, Free Press and Free Press Action Fund; 

• Ruth Livier, Actress, Writer, and UCLA Doctoral Student; 

• Tom Wheeler, Fellow, Brookings Institution; and 

• Michael Power, Chief Executive Officer, NCTA—the Internet & Television Association President. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

H.R. 1644, the ‘‘Save the Internet Act of 2019’’, was introduced 

on March 8, 2019, by Rep. Doyle (D–PA), and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology on March 9, 2019. 

Following legislative hearings, the Subcommittee met in open 

markup session on H.R. 1644 on March 26, 2019, pursuant to notice, for consideration of the bill. Subsequently, the Subcommittee 

on Communications and Technology agreed to a motion by Mr. 

Doyle, Chairman of the Subcommittee, to favorably forward H.R. 

1644 to the full Committee on Energy and Commerce without 

amendment. 

The full Committee met in open markup session, pursuant to notice, on April 3, 2019, to consider H.R. 1644. At the conclusion of 

consideration and markup of the bill, the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce agreed to a motion by Mr. Pallone, Chairman of the 

Committee, to order favorably reported H.R. 1644, amended, to the 

House. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires the Committee to list each record vote on the motion 

to report legislation and amendments thereto. The Committee advises that there were 13 record votes taken on H.R. 1644, including 

a motion by Mr. Pallone ordering H.R. 1644 favorably reported to 

the House, amended. The motion on final passage of the bill was 

approved by a record vote of 30 yeas to 22 nays. The following are 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
6 

the record votes taken during Committee consideration, including 

the names of those members voting for and against: 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
7 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 9 here HR34.001
8 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 10 here HR34.002
9 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 11 here HR34.003
10 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 12 here HR34.004
11 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 13 here HR34.005
12 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 14 here HR34.006
13 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 15 here HR34.007
14 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 16 here HR34.008
15 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 17 here HR34.009
16 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 18 here HR34.010
17 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 19 here HR34.011
18 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 20 here HR34.012
19 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 21 here HR34.013
20 

OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 2(b)(1) of rule 

X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s 

oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the descriptive portion of the report. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX

EXPENDITURES

Pursuant to 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee adopts as its own the estimate of new 

budget authority, entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or revenues contained in the cost estimate prepared by the Director of 

the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

The Committee has requested but not received from the Director 

of the Congressional Budget Office a statement as to whether this 

bill contains any new budget authority, spending authority, credit 

authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures. 

FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 

pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance 

goal or objective of this legislation is to restore the Report and 

Order on Remand, Declaration Ruling, and Order in the matter of 

protecting and promoting the open internet that was adopted by 

the FCC on February 26, 2015, such that the FCC may not revisit 

or otherwise modify such Report and Order on Remand, Declaration Ruling, and Order. 

DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII, no provision of H.R. 1644 

is known to be duplicative of another Federal program, including 

any program that was included in a report to Congress pursuant 

to section 21 of Public Law 111–139 or the most recent Catalog of 

Federal Domestic Assistance. 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII, the Committee adopts as 

its own the cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974. 

EARMARK, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, AND LIMITED TARIFF BENEFITS

Pursuant to clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI, the Committee 

finds that H.R. 1644 contains no earmarks, limited tax benefits, or 

limited tariff benefits. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
21 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this legislation. 

APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

Section 1. Short title; table of contents 

Section 1 designates that the short title may be cited as the 

‘‘Save the Internet Act’’. 

Sec. 2. Restoration of Open Internet Order 

Paragraph (a) of this section repeals and renders without effect 

the Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order, and Order in the matter 

of restoring internet freedom that was adopted by the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) on December 14, 2017. This 

section also prohibits the FCC from reissuing in substantially the 

same form a new rule that is substantially the same as those repealed in this section. 

The Committee intends this section to prohibit the FCC from repealing, in whole or in part, any rule repealed by the Declaratory 

Ruling, Report and Order, and Order in the matter of restoring 

internet freedom that was adopted by the Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) on December 14, 2017. 

Paragraph (b) of this section restores as in effect on January 19, 

2017, the Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and 

Order in the matter of protecting and promoting the open internet 

that was adopted by the FCC on February 26, 2015. This section 

also restores as in effect on January 19, 2017, Part 8 of Title 47 

of the Code of Federal Regulations, and any other rule of the Commission that was amended or repealed by the Declaratory Ruling, 

Report and Order, and Order described here. 

Paragraph (c)(1) of this section defines the term ‘‘Commission’’ to 

mean the Federal Communications Commission. 

Paragraph (c)(2) of this section defines the term ‘‘restored as in 

effect on January 19, 2017,’’ as permanently reinstating the rules 

and legal interpretations from the Declaratory Ruling and Order 

referenced in section 2(b)(1) as they were in effect on January 19, 

2017, including any decision to apply or forbear from applying a 

provision of the Communications Act of 1934 or a regulation of the 

Commission. This definition does not apply to the Report and 

Order on Remand described in section 2(b)(1). 

The Committee intends that paragraph (c)(2) would have the effect of permanently prohibiting the Commission from reversing any 

decision within the Declaratory Ruling and Order to apply or forbear from applying a provision of the Communications Act of 1934 

or a regulation of the Commission, as such decisions to apply or 

forbear from applying were in effect on January 19, 2017. The 

Committee intends to permanently prohibit reversal of such decisions even if the Commission stated in such Declaratory Ruling 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
22 

and Order that it was only forbearing at this time, for now, or 

pending some other action. 

Notably, paragraph (c)(2) does not limit in anyway the Report 

and Order on Remand, and therefore, the Committee intends that 

the FCC should retain the authority to adopt rules as appropriate 

to effectuate the provisions of the Communications Act of 1934 applied in the Declaratory Ruling and Order, consistent with applicable law. 

Paragraph (c) of this section defines the term ‘‘rule’’ to have the 

meaning given the term in section 804 of Title 5 of the United 

States Code. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

There are no changes in existing law made by the bill H.R. 1644. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
(23) 

1Letter from the Honorable Frank Pallone to Julius Genachowski, Chairman, FCC (May 28, 

2010) (‘‘Classifying broadband Internet access services as telecommunications services that are 

subject to the provisions of Title II of the Communications Act may have far reaching implications. In fact, I am concerned that a near-term effect of your announced proposal to (re)classify 

these services is to create uncertainty—something that is sure to adversely affect investment 

decisions and job creation, both of which are in short supply right now.’’) 2See, e.g., A Majority Staff Report of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs, United States Senate, Senator Ron Johnson, Chairman, Regulating the Internet: How 

the White House Bowled Over FCC Independence (Feb. 27, 2016), https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/ 

download/regulating-the-internet-how-the-white-house-bowled-over-fcc-independence; Restoring 

Internet Freedom Order at ¶¶ 6–19. 3Patrick Brogan, U.S. Broadband Investment Rebounded in 2017, US Telecom Research Brief 

(Oct. 18, 2018), https://www.ustelecom.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/USTelecom-ResearchBrief-Capex-2017.pdf. 4 2015 Order at ¶ 138 (‘‘Below we discuss a non-exhaustive list of factors we will use to assess 

such practices’’) (emphasis added). 5Patrick Brogan, Broadband Investment in 2018 Continues Upswing, US Telecom (Feb. 7, 

2019), https://www.ustelecom.org/broadband-investment-in-2018-continues-on-upswing/. 6See, e.g., Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10–90 et al., Report and Order and 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 17663 (2011) (modernizing the universal 

service system to ensure that robust, affordable voice and broadband service, both fixed and mobile, are available to Americans throughout the nation); Telecommunications Relay Services, and 

Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 

98–67, 15 FCC Rcd 5140 (establishing funding from the telecommunications relay service (TRS) 

fund for intrastate and interstate video relay service (VRS) calls); Telecommunications Relay 

Services, and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, 

CG Docket No. 03–123, Declaratory Ruling, 22 FCC Rcd 379 (Dec. 20, 2006) (clarifying that 

Internet Protocol (IP) captioned telephone relay service is a type of telecommunications relay 

service eligible for compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund). 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

As Chairman Pallone astutely noted, H.R. 1644 is not necessary 

to preserve a free and open internet.1 The internet grew to become 

the single most important driver of economic growth, job creation, 

and a better quality of life for all Americans before the FCC imposed heavy-handed Title II regulations on ISPs in 2015. The 

FCC’s 2015 Order, under the direction of President Obama, was a 

sharp but brief detour from years of bipartisan consensus that the 

internet should be regulated as an ‘‘information service’’ under 

Title I.2

In the two years of the Obama FCC’s Title regulations, broadband network investment declined by over $3 billion—or 

more than 5 percent.3 This was the first such decline outside of a 

recession in the internet era and was due, in large part, to the uncertainty Title II imposed on ISPs. In addition to impairing investment, Title II hindered innovation under the FCC’s amorphous 

general conduct standard.4

When the FCC repealed the heavy-handed rules in 2017 as part 

of the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, the FCC restored certainty for ISPs and consumers alike, and investment in broadband 

rebounded.5 The repeal also did not adversely affect low-income 

consumers or people with disabilities. Universal Service support for 

broadband and functional equivalent services protections were in 

place before the 2015 Order, and continue to be after its repeal.6

H.R. 1644 does not ‘‘codify’’ the FCC’s Open Internet Order. In 

re-imposing Title II, H.R. 1644 gives the FCC near unlimited auVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:23 Apr 06, 2019 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR034.XXX HR034

SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
24 

7 Congressional Research Service, Question Regarding H.R 1644, (April 2, 2019). 8 2015 Order at ¶ 5. 

9See H.R. 1006, 116th Cong. (2019) (introduced by Rep. Robert E. Latta (OH–05)), H.R. 1096, 

116th Cong. (2019) (introduced by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA–05)), and H.R. 1101, 

116th Cong. (2019) (introduced by Rep. Greg Walden (OR–02)). 

thority to regulate the internet; from decisions over content, to imposing taxes and fees for internet access. This is because the plain 

language of H.R. 1644 does not abrogate the FCC’s authority to revisit prior forbearance determinations, including those made in the 

2015 Order.7 Even if a reviewing court found that the language 

prohibits the FCC from reversing past forbearance decisions, it 

does not prevent the FCC from imposing substantially similar regulations under the sweeping Title II authority. This means that the 

FCC could impose rate regulations on broadband or impose content 

restrictions under areas of Title II that the FCC did not forbear 

from in its 2015 Order. Further, there is no way to determine what 

exactly H.R. 1644 codifies. The 2015 Order, which H.R. 1644 claims 

to codify, indicates that the FCC forbore from the application of 

‘‘over 700 Commission rules and regulations.’’ 8 However, neither 

the 2015 Order nor H.R. 1644 list out those 700 provisions of law. 

Despite multiple requests from the Minority, the Majority refused 

to produce this list, so there is no way to know which regulations 

H.R. 1644 would immediately impose on ISPs, and which regulations it would not. 

Rather than attempt to codify a 313-page Order written by 

unelected bureaucrats, the Committee should at least examine 

other bills introduced on this topic that address net neutrality 

without drastically expanding the government’s ability to regulate 

the Internet.9 In order to protect consumers from potential blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization by broadband providers, there 

is no need for legislation that allows the federal government to 

seize control over the internet with excessive regulations—which 

could slow down economic growth, destroy jobs, and stifle innovation. Instead, any legislation in this space must ensure the internet 

continues to flourish in order to help expand broadband access, 

bridge the digital divide, and realize the next wave of innovation. 

GREG WALDEN, 

Republican Leader. 

ROBERT E. LATTA, 

Republican Leader, Subcommittee on Communications 

and Technology. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS