Source: https://fr.scribd.com/document/399462177/Neutralite-Internet-USA
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:43:14+00:00

Document:
La neutralité d'internet. Etat du débat américain au 30 janvier 2019. "As congressional policymakers continue to debate telecommunications reform, a major discussion point revolves around what approach should be taken to ensure unfettered access to the internet. The move to place restrictions on the owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the internet, to ensure equal access and nondiscriminatory treatment, is referred to as “net neutrality.” There is no single accepted definition of “net neutrality,” but most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network, and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in its February 26, 2015, open meeting voted 3-2, along party lines, to adopt open internet rules and released these rules on March 12, 2015. One of the most controversial aspects of the rules was the decision to reclassify broadband internet access service as telecommunications service under Title II, thereby subjecting internet service providers to a more stringent regulatory framework. With limited exceptions, the rules went into effect June 12, 2015. Various parties challenged the legality of the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in a June 14, 2016, ruling, voted (2-1) to uphold the legality of all aspects of the 2015 FCC Order. A petition for full U.S. Appeals Court review was denied and a subsequent petition for U.S. Supreme Court review was declined. The FCC on December 14, 2017, adopted (3-2) an Order that largely reverses the 2015 regulatory framework. The 2017 Order, among other things, reverses the 2015 classification of broadband internet access services as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act, shifts much of the oversight from the FCC to the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, and provides for a less regulatory approach. This action has once again opened up the debate over what the appropriate framework is to ensure an open internet. Reaction to the 2017 Order has been mixed. Some see the 2015 FCC rules as regulatory overreach and welcome a more “light-touch” approach, which they feel will stimulate broadband investment, deployment, and innovation. Others support the 2015 regulations and feel that their reversal will result in a concentration of power to the detriment of content, services, and applications providers, as well as consumers, and refute the claim that these regulations have had a negative impact on broadband investment, expansion, or innovation. The 2017 Order was published in the Federal Register on February 22, 2018, and went into effect on June 11, 2018. Federal Register publication triggered timelines for both court challenges and Congressional Review Act (CRA) consideration. Petitions for review have been consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. CRA resolutions (S.J.Res. 52, H.J.Res. 129) to overturn the 2017 Order, were introduced in the 115th Congress. S.J.Res. 52 passed (52-47) the Senate, but H.J.Res. 129 was not considered in the House. The FCC’s move to adopt the 2017 Order has reopened the debate over whether Congress should consider a measure to amend existing law to provide greater regulatory stability and guidance to the FCC regarding broadband access. Four bills (H.R. 4682, H.R. 6393, S. 2510, and S. 2853) to provide a regulatory framework to outline FCC authority over broadband internet access services were introduced, but not acted on, in the 115th Congress. Debate over what the appropriate regulatory framework should be for broadband access is expected to continue in the 116th Congress."
and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network.
3-2, along party lines, to adopt open internet rules and released these rules on March 12, 2015.
voted (2-1) to uphold the legality of all aspects of the 2015 FCC Order. A petition for full U.S.
consideration. Petitions for review have been consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C.
as consumers, or whether a less regulatory approach contained in the 2017 Order is more suitable.
framework should be for broadband access is expected to continue.
stability to FCC authority over broadband access remains to be seen.
the Communications Act of 1934, to forbear from regulation.
1 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.
Over Wireline Facilities. Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 199, October 17, 2005, p. 60222.
Issues Raised by the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order.
paragraph 36 of the final rule summarized in the Federal Register cite in footnote 2, above).
Statement on Broadband Internet Access.
offered certain voluntary commitments, of which this was one.
internet principles issued in the FCC’s August 2005 internet policy statement.11 (See “Comcast v.
12 Comcast Corporation v. FCC, No. 08-129 (D.C. Cir. September 4, 2008).
14 Comcast v. FCC decision, issued April 6, 2010, part V, p. 36.
did not prohibit tiered or usage-based pricing (see “Metered/Usage-Based Billing,” below).
provisions contained in the 1934 Communications Act, as amended, to support FCC authority.
and Title VI, which gives the FCC the duty to protect competition in video services.
or reducing or mitigating the effects of congestion on the network.
21 In the Matter of Preserving the Open Internet, Broadband Industry Practices, paragraph 72.
issued its ruling on January 14, 2014, and remanded the decision to the FCC for consideration.
an impermissible common carrier regulation of an information service and could not be applied.
traffic. The court remanded the case to the FCC for further action.
24 Preserving the Open Internet; Final Rule. Federal Register, Vol.76, No. 185, September 23, 2011, pp. 59192-59235.
25 Order Granting Mot. Cons., DC/1:11-ca-01356 (J.P.M.L., October 6, 2011).
rulemaking and therefore must first be published in the Federal Register before it can be subject to judicial review.
Verizon v. FCC, Order Granting Mot. Dismiss, Case No. 11-1014 (D.C. Cir. April 4, 2011).
27 Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC, Case No. 11-1355 (D.C. Cir. October 18, 2011).
28 Verizon v. FCC, Case No. 11-1355 (D.C. Cir. January 14, 2014).
opportunities to enhance competition in the internet access market.
may utilize. The degree to which the FCC should use forbearance was also discussed.
30 New Docket Established to Address Open Internet Remand. GN Docket No. 14-28, released February 19, 2014.
February 19, 2014. Statement of Commissioner Ajit Pai on FCC Internet Regulation, released February 19, 2014.
33 In the Matter of Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, para. 4.
34 In the Matter of Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, para. 97.
35 In the Matter of Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, para. 116.
36 In the Matter of Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, para. 138.
from 30 statutory provisions and over 700 codified rules.
U.S. Supreme Court, on November 5, 2018, denied review.
Register, 19738-19850, April 13, 2015.
Selected Legal Issues Raised by the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order, by Kathleen Ann Ruane.
Expedited Review (June 11, 2015). Available at http://docs.techfreedom.org/oiostaydenial.pdf.
No. 15-1063, slip op. (D.C. Cir. May 1, 2017).
500, No. 17-501, No. 17-502, No. 17-503, No. 17-504 (October 3, 2017).
 conduct a cost-benefit analysis as part of the proceeding.
NPR and overturning the 2015 Order, was approved (3-2) by the FCC on December 14, 2017.
eliminate the general conduct standard; but expand the public transparency rules.
restore broadband consumer protection authority to the FTC.
blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization; and eliminates the internet conduct standard.
The Order finds that adding to the record in this proceeding is not in the public interest.
a negative impact on broadband investment, expansion, or innovation.
triggered timelines for both court challenges and Congressional Review Act consideration.
and no paid prioritization rules; and the general conduct standard.
55 Mozilla v. FCC, et al., No. 18-1051 (D.C. Cir. filed February 22, 2018).
11, 2018, Rules and Regulations. Available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-05-11/pdf/2018-10063.pdf.
consumer access to that data, have become significant issues in the debate.
to ensure the quality of these services has formed.
is significantly decreased in a marketplace where multiple, competing broadband providers exist.
by existing enforcement agencies at the federal and state level.
field includes the message content and the identity of the source application.
considered “harmful” or anticompetitive discrimination becomes the crux of the policy debate.
basis, is becoming more commonplace.
25% and 30% of its high speed internet service (i.e., Road Runner) customers use less than 1 GB (Gigabyte) per month.
charges high bandwidth users is more equitable.
being implemented in the marketplace by wireless carriers.
to try new and perhaps usage-heavy services and can improve competition among edge providers.
service provider, or those that are entrenched and well financed.
such regulation, remains to be seen.
address the privacy and transparency regulations of the 2015 Order.
Congressional Review Act (CRA): Frequently Asked Questions, by Maeve P. Carey and Christopher M. Davis.
authorization. No further action was taken on the measure.
established eligibility of BIAS services for Federal Universal Service Fund program support.
equipment and services, and exempted Title VIII provisions from FCC forebearance authority.
H.R. 1868, H.R. 2520, H.R. 3175) and transparency (S. 228, H.R. 288).
Flake and Representative Blackburn, respectively, to overturn the FCC’s customer privacy rules.
the House (215-205) on March 28, 2017, and was signed by the President on April 3, 2017 (P.L.
after the approved resolution (CRA. 5 U.S.C. para 801(b)(2)).
privacy, were introduced but received no further action.
fewer subscribers and sunset the transparency exemption five years from the bill’s enactment.
10, 2017, but received no further action.
the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, but no further action was taken.
final action was taken on any of these measures.
the Open Internet Order, introduced H.R. 1212, the “Internet Freedom Act,” on March 3, 2015.
to assist or facilitate actions taken by federal or state law enforcement agencies. Similarly S.
contain the provisions relating to exceptions.
amendment, on April 15, 2016.
Committee on June 9, 2016, and passed the House (239-185) on July 7, 2016.
Act (CRA): Frequently Asked Questions, by Maeve P. Carey and Christopher M. Davis.
House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.
on Oversight and Government Reform, and the House Financial Services Subcommittee.
Transportation, press release issued January 14, 2015.
16, 2015, available at http://energycommerce.house.gov.
Communications Commission (the FCC’s 2010 Open Internet Order).
were made for regulations determined by the FCC to be necessary to prevent damage to U.S.
engaged in the provision of an information service.
hearing on September 17, 2014, to address issues related to an open internet.
implement such regulations was a topic of legislation (H.R. 96, H.R. 166, S. 74, H.R. 2434, H.R.
Subcommittee) in the 112th Congress.
regulations regarding the internet or IP-enabled services, effective the date of the bill’s enactment.
application, and content providers. A more narrowly focused limitation was contained within H.R.
from the bill prior to final passage (P.L. 112-96).
injured parties could be awarded damages by the FCC or a federal district court.
FY2012 consolidated appropriations bill, H.R. 2055, which was signed by President Obama (P.L.
112-74) on December 23, 2011.
(30-23) H.J.Res. 37. On April 8, 2011, the full House considered and passed (240-179) H.J.Res.
November 10, 2011, by a 52-46 vote.
policy of nondiscrimination and openness with respect to internet access offered to the public.
committee passed (September 15, 2011) version (S.Rept. 112-79).
rules the FCC adopted would sunset in five years unless it could make the same finding again.
requirement for grant participants in the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP).
76 “Boucher Opts for Talks, Not Legislation, on Net Neutrality,” National Journal, Congress Daily, February 26, 2009.
“Boucher, Stakeholders Working on Network Management Issues,” Telecommunications Reports, March 15, 2009, p.
Service Fund: Background and Options for Reform, by Angele A. Gilroy.
contain discussions regarding the open internet and the classification of information services.
that are unjust, unreasonable, or unreasonably discriminatory” were to be declared unlawful.
such plans and were subject to a fine of not more than $1 million.
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
Report R40436, Broadband Infrastructure Programs in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, by Lennard G.

References: v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.