# FCC-17-166: Restoring Internet Freedom (01/04/18): Restoring Internet Freedom

> Federal · Rulings · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_FCC_17_166

## Section

- **Citation:** FCC-17-166: Restoring Internet Freedom (01/04/18)
- **Heading:** Restoring Internet Freedom
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Rulings
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** FCC Declaratory Rulings / Restoring Internet Freedom

## Text

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-166
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Restoring Internet Freedom
)
)
) WC Docket No. 17-108
DECLARATORY RULING, REPORT AND ORDER, AND ORDER
Adopted: December 14, 2017 Released: January 4, 2018
By the Commission: Chairman Pai and Commissioners O�Rielly and Carr issuing separate statements;
Commissioners Clyburn and Rosenworcel dissenting and issuing separate statements.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Para.
I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................1
II. BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................................................6
III. ENDING PUBLIC-UTILITY REGULATION OF THE INTERNET .................................................20
A. Reinstating the Information Service Classification of Broadband Internet Access Service...........21
1. Scope ........................................................................................................................................21
2. Broadband Internet Access Service Is an Information Service Under the Act ........................26
3. Other Provisions of the Act Support Broadband�s Information Service Classification...........58
B. Reinstating the Private Mobile Service Classification of Mobile Broadband Internet
Access Service ................................................................................................................................65
C. Public Policy Supports Classifying Broadband Internet Access Service As An
Information Service ........................................................................................................................86
1. Title II Regulation Imposes Substantial Costs on the Internet Ecosystem...............................88
2
..............................................................65
C. Public Policy Supports Classifying Broadband Internet Access Service As An
Information Service ........................................................................................................................86
1. Title II Regulation Imposes Substantial Costs on the Internet Ecosystem...............................88
2. Utility-Style Regulation of Broadband Is a Solution in Search of a Problem........................109
3. Pre-Existing Consumer Protection and Competition Laws Protect the Openness of the
Internet....................................................................................................................................140
D. Restoring the Information Service Classification is Lawful and Necessary.................................155
E. Effects on Regulatory Structures Created by the Title II Order ...................................................162
1. Ending Title II Regulation of Internet Traffic Exchange .......................................................163
2. Forbearance ............................................................................................................................174
3. Returning Broadband Privacy Authority to the FTC .............................................................181
4. Wireline Infrastructure ...........................................................................................................185
5. Wireless Infrastructure ...........................................................................................................187
6. Universal Service....................................................................................................................192
7. Preemption of Inconsistent State and Local Regulations .......................................................194
8. Disability Access Provisions ..................................................................................................205
9
187
6. Universal Service....................................................................................................................192
7. Preemption of Inconsistent State and Local Regulations .......................................................194
8. Disability Access Provisions ..................................................................................................205
9. Continued Applicability of Title III Licensing Provisions.....................................................206
IV. A LIGHT-TOUCH FRAMEWORK TO RESTORE INTERNET FREEDOM .................................207
A. Transparency.................................................................................................................................209
1. History of the Transparency Rule...........................................................................................211
2. Refining the Transparency Rule.............................................................................................215
3. Authority for the Transparency Rule......................................................................................232
B. Bright-Line and General Conduct Rules.......................................................................................239
1. Transparency Leads to Openness ...........................................................................................240
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-166
2
2. Costs of Conduct Rules Outweigh Benefits ...........................................................................246
3. The Record Does Not Identify Authority for Comprehensive Conduct Rules ......................267
C. Enforcement ..................................................................................................................................297
V. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................304
VI
....246
3. The Record Does Not Identify Authority for Comprehensive Conduct Rules ......................267
C. Enforcement ..................................................................................................................................297
V. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................304
VI. ORDER................................................................................................................................................324
A. Denial of INCOMPAS Petition to Modify Protective Orders ......................................................324
B. Denial of NHMC Motion Regarding Informal Consumer Complaints ........................................339
VII. PROCEDURAL MATTERS ........................................................................................................344
A. The Administrative Record...........................................................................................................344
B. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ...........................................................................................346
C. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis ..............................................................................................347
D. Congressional Review Act............................................................................................................349
E. Data Quality Act ...........................................................................................................................350
F. Accessible Formats .......................................................................................................................351
VIII. ORDERING CLAUSES ...............................................................................................................352
APPENDIX A � Final Rules
APPENDIX B � Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
I. INTRODUCTION
1
.............350
F. Accessible Formats .......................................................................................................................351
VIII. ORDERING CLAUSES ...............................................................................................................352
APPENDIX A � Final Rules
APPENDIX B � Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Over twenty years ago, in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, President Clinton and a
Republican Congress established the policy of the United States �to preserve the vibrant and competitive
free market that presently exists for the Internet . . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation.�
1
Today,
we honor that bipartisan commitment to a free and open Internet by rejecting government control of the
Internet. We reverse the Commission�s abrupt shift two years ago to heavy-handed utility-style
regulation of broadband Internet access service and return to the light-touch framework under which a
free and open Internet underwent rapid and unprecedented growth for almost two decades. We eliminate
burdensome regulation that stifles innovation and deters investment, and empower Americans to choose
the broadband Internet access service that best fits their needs.
2. We take several actions in this Order to restore Internet freedom. First, we end utility-
style regulation of the Internet in favor of the market-based policies necessary to preserve the future of
Internet freedom. In the 2015 Title II Order, the Commission abandoned almost twenty years of
precedent and reclassified broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service subject to
myriad regulatory obligations under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act).
2

We reverse this misguided and legally flawed approach and restore broadband Internet access service to
its Title I information service classification
andoned almost twenty years of
precedent and reclassified broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service subject to
myriad regulatory obligations under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act).
2

We reverse this misguided and legally flawed approach and restore broadband Internet access service to
its Title I information service classification. We find that reclassification as an information service best
comports with the text and structure of the Act, Commission precedent, and our policy objectives. We
thus return to the approach to broadband Internet access service affirmed as reasonable by the U.S.
Supreme Court.
3
We also reinstate the private mobile service classification of mobile broadband Internet
access service and return to the Commission�s definition of �interconnected service� that existed prior to
2015. We determine that this light-touch information service framework will promote investment and
innovation better than applying costly and restrictive laws of a bygone era to broadband Internet access
service. Our balanced approach also restores the authority of the nation�s most experienced cop on the
privacy beat�the Federal Trade Commission�to police the privacy practices of Internet Service
Providers (ISPs).
1
47 U.S.C. � 230(b)(2). See generally Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56
(codified at 47 U.S.C. � 151 et seq.) (1996 Act).
2
See Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, WC Docket No. 14-28, Report and Order on Remand,
Declaratory Ruling, and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 5601 (2015) (Title II Order).
3
See Nat�l Cable & Telecomms. Ass�n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005) (Brand X).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-166
3
3. Next, we require ISPs to be transparent
.S.C. � 151 et seq.) (1996 Act).
2
See Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, WC Docket No. 14-28, Report and Order on Remand,
Declaratory Ruling, and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 5601 (2015) (Title II Order).
3
See Nat�l Cable & Telecomms. Ass�n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005) (Brand X).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-166
3
3. Next, we require ISPs to be transparent. Disclosure of network management practices,
performance, and commercial terms of service is important for Internet freedom because it helps
consumers choose what works best for them and enables entrepreneurs and other small businesses to get
technical information needed to innovate. Individual consumers, not the government, decide what
Internet access service best meets their individualized needs. We return to the transparency rule the
Commission adopted in 2010
4
with certain limited modifications to promote additional transparency, and
we eliminate certain reporting requirements adopted in the Title II Order that we find to be unnecessary
and unduly burdensome.
4. Finally, we eliminate the Commission�s conduct rules. The record evidence, including
our cost-benefit analysis, demonstrates that the costs of these rules to innovation and investment outweigh
any benefits they may have. In addition, we have not identified any sources of legal authority that could
justify the comprehensive conduct rules governing ISPs adopted in the Title II Order. Lastly, we find that
the conduct rules are unnecessary because the transparency requirement we adopt, together with antitrust
and consumer protection laws, ensures that consumers have means to take remedial action if an ISP
engages in behavior inconsistent with an open Internet.
5
authority that could
justify the comprehensive conduct rules governing ISPs adopted in the Title II Order. Lastly, we find that
the conduct rules are unnecessary because the transparency requirement we adopt, together with antitrust
and consumer protection laws, ensures that consumers have means to take remedial action if an ISP
engages in behavior inconsistent with an open Internet.
5. Through these actions, we advance our critical work to promote broadband deployment
in rural America and infrastructure investment throughout the nation, brighten the future of innovation
both within networks and at their edge, and move closer to the goal of eliminating the digital divide.
II. BACKGROUND
6. Since long before the commercialization of the Internet, federal law has drawn a line
between the more heavily-regulated common carrier services like traditional telephone service and more
lightly-regulated services that offer more than mere transmission. More than fifty years ago, the
Commission decided Computer I, the first of a series of decisions known as the Computer Inquiries,
5

which, in combination, created a dichotomy between �basic� and �enhanced� services.
6
In 1980�s Second
Computer Inquiry, the Commission established that basic services offered �pure transmission capability
over a communications path that is virtually transparent in terms of its interaction with customer supplied
information�
7
and were �regulated under Title II of the [Communications] Act.�
8
Enhanced services, by
contrast, were �any offering over the telecommunications network which is more than a basic
transmission service. In an enhanced service, for example, computer processing applications are used to
act on the content, code, protocol, and other aspects of the subscriber�s information.�
9
Unlike basic
services, the Commission found that �enhanced services should not be regulated under the Act.�
10
7
ere �any offering over the telecommunications network which is more than a basic
transmission service. In an enhanced service, for example, computer processing applications are used to
act on the content, code, protocol, and other aspects of the subscriber�s information.�
9
Unlike basic
services, the Commission found that �enhanced services should not be regulated under the Act.�
10
7. Just two years later, the federal courts would draw a similar line in resolving the
government�s antitrust case against AT&T. The Modification of Final Judgment (MFJ) of 1982
distinguished between �telecommunications services,� which Bell Operating Companies could offer when
4
See Preserving the Open Internet; Broadband Industry Practices, GN Docket No. 09-191, WC Docket No. 07-52,
Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 17905, 17972-80, 17981, paras. 124-35, 137 (2010) (Open Internet Order).
5
Regulatory and Policy Problems Presented by the Interdependence of Computer and Communication Services,
Notice of Inquiry, 7 FCC 2d 11 (1966).
6
Amendment of Section 64.702 of the Commission�s Rules and Regulations (Second Computer Inquiry), Docket No.
20828, Final Decision, 77 FCC 2d 384, 420, para. 97 (1980) (Computer II Final Decision).
7
Id. at 420, para. 96.
8
Id. at 428, para. 114.
9
Id. at 420, para. 97.
10
Id. at 428, para. 114.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-166
4
�actually regulated by tariff,�
11
and �information services,� including �data processing and other
computer-related services�
12
and �electronic publishing services,�
13
which Bell Operating Companies
(BOCs) were prohibited from offering under the terms of that court decision.
14
The Telecommunications
Act of 1996�s (the 1996 Act) �information service� definition is based on the definition of that same term
used in the MFJ, which governed the Bell Operating Companies after the breakup of the Bell system.
15

8
electronic publishing services,�
13
which Bell Operating Companies
(BOCs) were prohibited from offering under the terms of that court decision.
14
The Telecommunications
Act of 1996�s (the 1996 Act) �information service� definition is based on the definition of that same term
used in the MFJ, which governed the Bell Operating Companies after the breakup of the Bell system.
15

8. In the 1996 Act, intended to �promote competition and reduce regulation,�
16
Congress
drew a line between lightly regulated �information services� and more heavily regulated
�telecommunications services.�
17
It also found that the �Internet and other interactive computer services
have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation�
18
and
declared it the policy of the United States to �promote the continued development of the Internet and
other interactive computer services and other interactive media� and �to preserve the vibrant and
competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services,
unfettered by Federal or State regulation.�
19
The 1996 Act went on to define �interactive computer
service� to include �any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables
computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that
provides access to the Internet . . . .�
20
9. For the next 16 years, the Commission repeatedly adopted a light-touch approach to the
Internet that favored discrete and targeted actions over pre-emptive, sweeping regulation of Internet
service providers. In the 1998 Stevens Report, the Commission comprehensively reviewed the Act�s
definitions as they applied to the emerging technology of the Internet and concluded that Internet access
service was properly classified as an information service
light-touch approach to the
Internet that favored discrete and targeted actions over pre-emptive, sweeping regulation of Internet
service providers. In the 1998 Stevens Report, the Commission comprehensively reviewed the Act�s
definitions as they applied to the emerging technology of the Internet and concluded that Internet access
service was properly classified as an information service.
21
The Stevens Report also found that subjecting
Internet service providers and other information service providers to �the broad range of Title II
constraints,� would �seriously curtail the regulatory freedom that the Commission concluded in Computer
II was important to the healthy and competitive development of the enhanced-services industry.�
22
11
U.S. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 552 F. Supp. 131, 228-29 (D.D.C. 1982) (MFJ Initial Decision), aff�d sub nom.
Maryland v. U.S., 460 U.S. 1001 (1983).
12
Id. at 179.
13
Id. at 180.
14
Id. at 228.
15
Implementation of the Non-Accounting Safeguards of Section 271 and 272 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, CC Docket No. 96-149, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd
21905, 21954, para. 99 (1996) (Non-Accounting Safeguards Order); see also, e.g., H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-458 at
126 (Jan. 31, 1996) (��Information service� and �telecommunications� are defined based on the definition used in the
Modification of Final Judgment.�); see also Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45,
Report to Congress, 13 FCC Rcd 11501, 11514, para. 28 (1998) (Stevens Report) (citing MFJ Initial Decision, 552
F. Supp. at 226-32).
16
Preamble, Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).
17
47 U.S.C. � 153(24), (53).
18
47 U.S.C. � 230(a)(4).
19
47 U.S.C. � 230(b)(1), (2).
20
47 U.S.C. � 230(f)(2).
21
Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45, Report to Congress, 13 FCC Rcd 11501,
11536, para
(citing MFJ Initial Decision, 552
F. Supp. at 226-32).
16
Preamble, Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).
17
47 U.S.C. � 153(24), (53).
18
47 U.S.C. � 230(a)(4).
19
47 U.S.C. � 230(b)(1), (2).
20
47 U.S.C. � 230(f)(2).
21
Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45, Report to Congress, 13 FCC Rcd 11501,
11536, para. 73 (1998) (Stevens Report).
22
Id. at 11524, para. 46.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-166
5
10. In the 2002 Cable Modem Order, the Commission classified broadband Internet access
service over cable systems as an �interstate information service,�
23
a classification that the Supreme Court
upheld in June 2005 in the Brand X decision.
24
There was no dispute that at least some of the elements of
Internet access met the definition of �information services,� and the Court rejected claims that �[w]hen a
consumer goes beyond those offerings and accesses content provided by parties other than the cable
company� that �consumer uses �pure transmission.��
25
To the contrary, the Court found �reasonable� �the
Commission�s understanding of the nature of cable modem service��namely, that �[w]hen an end user
accesses a third party�s Web site� that user �is equally using the information service provided by the cable
company that offers him Internet access as when he accesses the company�s own Web site, its e-mail
service, or his personal Web page,� citing as examples the roles of Domain Name System (DNS) and
caching.
26
11. In 2004, then-FCC Chairman Michael Powell announced four principles for Internet
freedom to further ensure that the Internet would remain a place for free and open innovation with
minimal regulation.
27
These four �Internet freedoms� include the freedom to access lawful content, the
freedom to use applications, the freedom to attach personal devices to the network, and the freedom to
obtain service plan information.
28
12
ll announced four principles for Internet
freedom to further ensure that the Internet would remain a place for free and open innovation with
minimal regulation.
27
These four �Internet freedoms� include the freedom to access lawful content, the
freedom to use applications, the freedom to attach personal devices to the network, and the freedom to
obtain service plan information.
28
12. In the 2005 Wireline Broadband Classification Order, the Commission classified
broadband Internet access service over wireline facilities as an information service.
29
At the same time,
the Commission also unanimously endorsed the four Internet freedoms in the Internet Policy Statement.
30

The Internet Policy Statement announced the Commission�s intent to �incorporate [these] principles into
its ongoing policymaking activities� in order to �foster creation, adoption and use of Internet broadband
content, applications, services and attachments, and to ensure consumers benefit from the innovation that
comes from competition.�
31
23
See Inquiry Concerning High-Speed Access to the Internet Over Cable & Other Facilities; Internet Over Cable
Declaratory Ruling; Appropriate Regulatory Treatment for Broadband Access to the Internet Over Cable Facilities,
GN Docket No. 00-185, CS Docket No. 02-52, Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC
Rcd 4798, 4802, para. 7 (2002) (Cable Modem Order).
24
Brand X, 545 U.S. 967.
25
Id. at 998.
26
Id. at 998-1000.
27
Michael K. Powell, Chairman, FCC, Preserving Internet Freedom: Guiding Principles for the Industry, Remarks at
the Silicon Flatirons Symposium (Feb. 8, 2004), https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-243556A1.pdf
(Powell Speech).
28
Id. at 5.
29
See Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet Over Wireline Facilities et al., CC Docket Nos.
02-33, 01-337, 95-20, 98-10, WC Docket Nos
irman, FCC, Preserving Internet Freedom: Guiding Principles for the Industry, Remarks at
the Silicon Flatirons Symposium (Feb. 8, 2004), https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-243556A1.pdf
(Powell Speech).
28
Id. at 5.
29
See Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet Over Wireline Facilities et al., CC Docket Nos.
02-33, 01-337, 95-20, 98-10, WC Docket Nos. 04-242, 05-271, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 14853 (2005) (Wireline Broadband Classification Order), aff�d Time Warner Telecom,
Inc. v. FCC, 507 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2007).
30
Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet over Wireline Facilities et al., GN Docket No. 00-
185, CC Docket Nos. 02-33, 01-33, 98-10, 95-20, CS Docket No. 02-52, Policy Statement, 20 FCC Rcd 14986
(2005) (Internet Policy Statement).
31
Id. at 14988, para. 5. The Commission did this, for example, by incorporating such principles in its rules
governing certain wireless spectrum. See Service Rules For the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands et al.,
WT Docket No. 06-150 et al., Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15289, 15361, 15365, paras. 194, 206 (2007).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-166
6
13. In the 2006 BPL-Enabled Broadband Order, the Commission concluded that broadband
Internet access service over power lines was properly classified as an information service,
32
and in the
2007 Wireless Broadband Internet Access Order, the Commission classified wireless broadband Internet
access service as an information service, again recognizing the �minimal regulatory environment� that
promoted the �ubiquitous availability of broadband to all Americans.�
33
The Commission also found that
�mobile wireless broadband Internet access service is not a �commercial mobile radio service� as that
term is defined in the Act and implemented in the Commission�s rules.�
34
14
t
access service as an information service, again recognizing the �minimal regulatory environment� that
promoted the �ubiquitous availability of broadband to all Americans.�
33
The Commission also found that
�mobile wireless broadband Internet access service is not a �commercial mobile radio service� as that
term is defined in the Act and implemented in the Commission�s rules.�
34
14. In the 2008 Comcast-BitTorrent Order, the Commission sought to directly enforce
federal Internet policy that it drew from various statutory provisions consistent with the Internet Policy
Statement, finding certain actions by Comcast �contravene[d] . . . federal policy� by �significantly
imped[ing] consumers� ability to access the content and use the applications of their choice.�
35
In 2010,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected the Commission�s action, holding that the
Commission had not justified its action as a valid exercise of ancillary authority.
36
15. In response, the Commission adopted the 2010 Open Internet Order, where once again
the Commission specifically rejected Title II-based heavy-handed regulation of broadband Internet access
service.
37
Instead, the Open Internet Order relied on, among other things, newly-claimed regulatory
authority under section 706 of the Telecommunications Act to establish no-blocking and no-
unreasonable-discrimination rules as well as a requirement that broadband Internet access service
providers �publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices,
performance, and commercial terms of its broadband Internet access services.�
38

16. In 2014, the D.C
ry
authority under section 706 of the Telecommunications Act to establish no-blocking and no-
unreasonable-discrimination rules as well as a requirement that broadband Internet access service
providers �publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices,
performance, and commercial terms of its broadband Internet access services.�
38

16. In 2014, the D.C. Circuit vacated the no-blocking and no-unreasonable-discrimination
rules adopted in the Open Internet Order, finding that the rules impermissibly regulated broadband
Internet access service providers as common carriers,
39
in conflict with the Commission�s prior
determination that broadband Internet access service was not a telecommunications service and that
mobile broadband Internet access service was not a commercial mobile service.
40
The D.C. Circuit
nonetheless upheld the transparency rule,
41
held that the Commission had reasonably construed section
32
See United Power Line Council�s Petition for Declaratory Ruling Regarding the Classification of Broadband over
Power Line Internet Access Service as an Information Service, WC Docket No. 06-10, Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 21 FCC Rcd 13281 (2006) (BPL-Enabled Broadband Order).
33
See Appropriate Regulatory Treatment for Broadband Access to the Internet Over Wireless Networks, Declaratory
Ruling, 22 FCC Rcd 5901, 5902, para. 2 (2007) (Wireless Broadband Internet Access Order).
34
Id. at 5916, para. 41.
35
Formal Complaint of Free Press and Public Knowledge Against Comcast Corporation for Secretly Degrading
Peer-to-Peer Applications; Broadband Industry Practices; Petition of Free Press et al. for Declaratory Ruling that
Degrading an Internet Application Violates the FCC�s Internet Policy Statement and Does Not Meet an Exception
for �Reasonable Network Management, File No. EB-08-IH-1518, WC Docket No. 07-52, Memorandum Opinion
and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 13028, 13052, 13054, paras. 43, 45 (2008) (Comcast-BitTorrent Order)
ions; Broadband Industry Practices; Petition of Free Press et al. for Declaratory Ruling that
Degrading an Internet Application Violates the FCC�s Internet Policy Statement and Does Not Meet an Exception
for �Reasonable Network Management, File No. EB-08-IH-1518, WC Docket No. 07-52, Memorandum Opinion
and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 13028, 13052, 13054, paras. 43, 45 (2008) (Comcast-BitTorrent Order).
36
Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 600 F.3d 642 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (Comcast). Among other things, the court held that section
706 of the 1996 Act could not serve as the source of direct authority to which the Commission�s action was ancillary
because the Commission was bound in Comcast by a prior Commission determination that section 706 did not
constitute a direct grant of authority. Id. at 658-59.
37
Open Internet Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 17972-80, 17981, paras. 124-35, 137.
38
Id. at 17992 (Appendix A).
39
Verizon v. FCC, 740 F.3d 623, 655-58 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (Verizon).
40
Id. at 650.
41
Id. at 635-42.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-166
7
706 of the Telecommunications Act as a grant of authority to regulate broadband Internet access service
providers, and suggested that no-blocking and no-unreasonable-discrimination rules might be permissible
if Internet service providers could engage in individualized bargaining.
42

17. Later that year, the Commission embarked yet again down the path of rulemaking,
proposing to rely on section 706 of the 1996 Act to adopt enforceable rules using the D.C. Circuit�s
�roadmap.�
43
But in November 2014, then-President Obama called on the FCC to �reclassify consumer
broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act.�
44
Three months later, the Commission
shifted course and adopted the Title II Order, reclassifying broadband Internet access service from an
information service to a telecommunications service,
45
and reclassifying mobile broadband Internet access
service as a commercial mobile service
n the FCC to �reclassify consumer
broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act.�
44
Three months later, the Commission
shifted course and adopted the Title II Order, reclassifying broadband Internet access service from an
information service to a telecommunications service,
45
and reclassifying mobile broadband Internet access
service as a commercial mobile service.
46
The Commission also adopted three bright-line rules
prohibiting blocking, throttling, and paid-prioritization, as well as a general Internet conduct standard and
�enhancements� to the transparency rule.
47
In 2016, a divided panel of the D.C. Circuit upheld the Title II
Order in United States Telecom Association v. FCC, concluding that the Commission�s classification of
broadband Internet access service was permissible under Chevron step two.
48
The D.C. Circuit denied
petitions for rehearing of the case en banc,
49
and petitions for certiorari remain pending with the Supreme
Court.
50
18. In May 2017, we adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Internet Freedom NPRM),
51

in which we proposed to return to the successful light-touch bipartisan framework that promoted a free
and open Internet and, for almost twenty years, saw it flourish. Specifically, the Internet Freedom NPRM
proposed to reinstate the information service classification of broadband Internet access service. The
Internet Freedom NPRM also proposed to reinstate the determination that mobile broadband Internet
access service is not a commercial mobile service.
52
To determine how to best honor the Commission�s
commitment to ensuring the free and open Internet, the Internet Freedom NPRM also proposed to re-
evaluate the Commission�s existing rules and enforcement regime to analyze whether ex ante regulatory
42
See, e.g., id. at 657 (quoting Cellco Partnership v. FCC, 700 F.3d 534, 549 (D.C. Cir. 2012)).
43
Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, WC Docket No
w to best honor the Commission�s
commitment to ensuring the free and open Internet, the Internet Freedom NPRM also proposed to re-
evaluate the Commission�s existing rules and enforcement regime to analyze whether ex ante regulatory
42
See, e.g., id. at 657 (quoting Cellco Partnership v. FCC, 700 F.3d 534, 549 (D.C. Cir. 2012)).
43
Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, WC Docket No. 14-28, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC
Rcd 5561 (2014) (2014 Notice).
44
President Obama, Statement on Net Neutrality (Nov. 10, 2014), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-
office/2014/11/10/statement-president-net-neutrality.
45
Title II Order, 30 FCC Rcd 5601.
46
Id. at 5778, para. 388.
47
Id. at 5607-09, paras. 15-24.
48
United States Telecom Ass�n v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (USTelecom).
49
United States Telecom Ass�n v. FCC, 855 F.3d 381, 382 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (Srinivasan, J., and Tatel, J., concurring
in the denial of rehearing en banc) (stating that �[e]n banc review would be particularly unwarranted at this point in
light of the uncertainty surrounding the fate of the FCC�s Order�).
50
See Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Berninger v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674 (No. 17-498); Petition for Writ of Certiorari,
AT&T v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674 (No. 17-499); Petition for Writ of Certiorari, American Cable Ass'n v. FCC, 825 F.3d
674 (No. 17-500); Petition for Writ of Certiorari, CTIA-The Wireless Ass'n v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674 (No. 17-501);
Petition for Writ of Certiorari, NCTA-The Internet & Television Ass'n v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674 (No. 17-502); Petition
for Writ of Certiorari, TechFreedom v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674 (No. 17-503); Petition for Writ of Certiorari, United
States Telecom Ass'n v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674 (No. 17-504)..
51
Restoring Internet Freedom, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 4434 (2017) (Internet Freedom
NPRM).
52
Id. at 4453, para. 55.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-166
8
intervention in the market is necessary
Writ of Certiorari, TechFreedom v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674 (No. 17-503); Petition for Writ of Certiorari, United
States Telecom Ass'n v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674 (No. 17-504)..
51
Restoring Internet Freedom, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 4434 (2017) (Internet Freedom
NPRM).
52
Id. at 4453, para. 55.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-166
8
intervention in the market is necessary.
53
Specifically, the Internet Freedom NPRM proposed to eliminate
the Internet conduct standard and the non-exhaustive list of factors intended to guide application of that
rule.
54
It also sought comment on whether to keep, modify, or eliminate the bright-line conduct and
transparency rules.
55
19. The Internet Freedom NPRM prompted more comments than any other rulemaking in the
Commission�s history. Between release of the Internet Freedom NPRM and the close of the comment
period on August 30, 2017, more than 22 million comments were filed in our Electronic Comment Filing
System (ECFS), with even more submissions lodged during the ex parte period.
56
The Commission is
grateful to all commenters who engaged the legal and public policy questions presented by this important
rulemaking.
III. ENDING PUBLIC-UTILITY REGULATION OF THE INTERNET
20. We reinstate the information service classification of broadband Internet access service,
consistent with the Supreme Court�s holding in Brand X.
57
Based on the record before us, we conclude
that the best reading of the relevant definitional provisions of the Act supports classifying broadband
Internet access service as an information service. Having determined that broadband Internet access
service, regardless of whether offered using fixed or mobile technologies, is an information service under
the Act, we also conclude that as an information service, mobile broadband Internet access service should
not be classified as a commercial mobile service or its functional equivalent
Internet access service as an information service. Having determined that broadband Internet access
service, regardless of whether offered using fixed or mobile technologies, is an information service under
the Act, we also conclude that as an information service, mobile broadband Internet access service should
not be classified as a commercial mobile service or its functional equivalent. We find that it is well
within our legal authority to classify broadband Internet access service as an information service, and
reclassification also comports with applicable law governing agency decisions to change course. While
we find our legal analysis sufficient on its own to support an information service classification of
broadband Internet access service, strong public policy considerations further weigh in favor of an
information service classification. Below, we find that economic theory, empirical data, and even
anecdotal evidence also counsel against imposing public-utility style regulation on ISPs. The broader
Internet ecosystem thrived under the light-touch regulatory treatment of Title I, with massive investment
and innovation by both ISPs and edge providers, leading to previously unimagined technological
developments and services. We conclude that a return to Title I classification will facilitate critical
broadband investment and innovation by removing regulatory uncertainty and lowering compliance costs.
A. Reinstating the Information Service Classification of Broadband Internet Access
Service
1. Scope
21. We continue to define �broadband Internet access service� as a mass-market
58
retail
service by wire or radio that provides the capability to transmit data to and receive data from all or
53
Id. at 4458, para. 70.
54
Id. at 4458, para. 72.
55
Id. at 4460, para. 76, 4461-64, paras. 80-91.
56
Initial comments on the Internet Freedom NPRM were due on July 17, 2017
ice
1. Scope
21. We continue to define �broadband Internet access service� as a mass-market
58
retail
service by wire or radio that provides the capability to transmit data to and receive data from all or
53
Id. at 4458, para. 70.
54
Id. at 4458, para. 72.
55
Id. at 4460, para. 76, 4461-64, paras. 80-91.
56
Initial comments on the Internet Freedom NPRM were due on July 17, 2017. Reply comments were originally
due on August 16, 2017, but the Commission granted a two-week extension until August 30, 2017, to allow parties
�additional time to analyze the technical, legal, and policy arguments raised by initial commenters [and] provide the
Commission with more thorough comments, ensuring that the Commission has a complete record on which to
develop its decisions.� FCC Extends Restoring Internet Freedom Reply Deadline to Aug. 30, WC Docket No. 17-
108, Order, 32 FCC Rcd 6535, 6535-36, para. 2 (WCB 2017).
57
Brand X, 545 U.S. at 980.
58
By mass market, we mean services marketed and sold on a standardized basis to residential customers, small
businesses, and other end-user customers such as schools and libraries. �Schools� would include institutions of
higher education to the extent that they purchase these standardized retail services. For purposes of this definition,
�mass market� also includes broadband Internet access service purchased with the support of the E-rate and Rural
(continued�.)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-166
9
substantially all Internet endpoints, including any capabilities that are incidental to and enable the
operation of the communications service, but excluding dial-up Internet access service.
59

22. The term �broadband Internet access service� includes services provided over any
technology platform, including but not limited to wire, terrestrial wireless (including fixed and mobile
wireless services using licensed or unlicensed spectrum), and satellite
at are incidental to and enable the
operation of the communications service, but excluding dial-up Internet access service.
59

22. The term �broadband Internet access service� includes services provided over any
technology platform, including but not limited to wire, terrestrial wireless (including fixed and mobile
wireless services using licensed or unlicensed spectrum), and satellite. For purposes of our discussion,
we divide the various forms of broadband Internet access service into the two categories of �fixed� and
�mobile.� With these two categories of services�fixed and mobile�we intend to cover the entire
universe of Internet access services at issue in the Commission�s prior broadband classification
decisions,
60
as well as all other broadband Internet access services offered over other technology
platforms that were not addressed by prior classification orders. We also make clear that our
classification finding applies to all providers of broadband Internet access service, as we delineate them
here, regardless of whether they lease or own the facilities used to provide the service.
61
�Fixed�
broadband Internet access service refers to a broadband Internet access service that serves end users
primarily at fixed endpoints using stationary equipment, such as the modem that connects an end user�s
home router, computer, or other Internet access device to the Internet.
62
The term encompasses the
delivery of fixed broadband over any medium, including various forms of wired broadband services (e.g.,
cable, DSL, fiber), fixed wireless broadband services (including fixed services using unlicensed
spectrum), and fixed satellite broadband services. �Mobile� broadband Internet access service refers to a
broadband Internet access service that serves end users primarily using mobile stations
elivery of fixed broadband over any medium, including various forms of wired broadband services (e.g.,
cable, DSL, fiber), fixed wireless broadband services (including fixed services using unlicensed
spectrum), and fixed satellite broadband services. �Mobile� broadband Internet access service refers to a
broadband Internet access service that serves end users primarily using mobile stations.
63
Mobile
broadband Internet access includes, among other things, services that use smartphones or mobile-
network-enabled tablets as the primary endpoints for connection to the Internet.
64
The term also
encompasses mobile satellite broadband services.
23. As the Commission found in 2010, broadband Internet access service does not include
services offering connectivity to one or a small number of Internet endpoints for a particular device, e.g.,
connectivity bundled with e-readers, heart monitors, or energy consumption sensors, to the extent the
service relates to the functionality of the device.
65
To the extent these services are provided by ISPs over
last-mile capacity shared with broadband Internet access service, they would be non-broadband Internet
access service data services (formerly specialized services). As the Commission found in both 2010 and
2015, non-broadband Internet access service data services do not fall under the broadband Internet access
(Continued from previous page)
Healthcare programs, as well as any broadband Internet access service offered using networks supported by the
Connect America Fund (CAF), but does not include enterprise service offerings or special access services, which are
typically offered to larger organizations through customized or individually negotiated arrangements. See Open
Internet Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 17932, para. 45; Title II Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 5745-46, para. 336 & n.879.
59
47 CFR � 8.11(a); Open Internet Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 17932, para. 44; id. at 17935, para
oes not include enterprise service offerings or special access services, which are
typically offered to larger organizations through customized or individually negotiated arrangements. See Open
Internet Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 17932, para. 45; Title II Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 5745-46, para. 336 & n.879.
59
47 CFR � 8.11(a); Open Internet Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 17932, para. 44; id. at 17935, para. 51 (finding that the
market and regulatory landscape for dial-up Internet access service differed from broadband Internet access service).
60
See Wireless Broadband Internet Access Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 5909-10, paras. 19, 22; Cable Modem Order, 17
FCC Rcd at 4818-19, para. 31; Wireline Broadband Classification Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 14860, para. 9; BPL-
Enabled Broadband Order, 21 FCC Rcd 13281; Title II Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 5746, para. 337.
61
As the Supreme Court observed in Brand X, �the relevant definitions do not distinguish facilities-based and non-
facilities-based carriers.� Brand X, 545 U.S. at 997.
62
Open Internet Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 17934, para. 49; Title II Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 5683, para. 188.
63
See 47 U.S.C. � 153(34); Open Internet Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 17934, para. 49.
64
We note that �public safety services� as defined in section 337(f)(1) would not meet the definition of �broadband
Internet access service� subject to the rules herein given that �such services are not made commercially available to
the public by the provider� as a mass-market retail service. 47 U.S.C. � 337(f)(1).
65
See Open Internet Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 17933, para. 47, n.149.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-166
10
service category.
66
Such services generally are not used to reach large parts of the Internet; are not a
generic platform, but rather a specific applications-level service; and use some form of network
management to isolate the capacity used by these services from that used by broadband Internet access
services
t 17933, para. 47, n.149.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-166
10
service category.
66
Such services generally are not used to reach large parts of the Internet; are not a
generic platform, but rather a specific applications-level service; and use some form of network
management to isolate the capacity used by these services from that used by broadband Internet access
services.
67
Further, we observe that to the extent ISPs �use their broadband infrastructure to provide
video and voice services, those services are regulated in their own right.�
68

24. Broadband Internet access service also does not include virtual private network (VPN)
services, content delivery networks (CDNs), hosting or data storage services, or Internet backbone
services (if those services are separate from broadband Internet access service), consistent with past
Commission precedent.
69
The Commission has historically distinguished these services from �mass
market� services, as they do not provide the capability to transmit data to and receive data from all or
substantially all Internet endpoints.
70
We do not disturb that finding here.
25. Finally, we observe that to the extent that coffee shops, bookstores, airlines, private end-
user networks such as libraries and universities, and other businesses acquire broadband Internet access
service from an ISP to enable patrons to access the Internet from their respective establishments,
provision of such service by the premise operator would not itself be considered a broadband Internet
access service unless it was offered to patrons as a retail mass market service, as we define it here
such as libraries and universities, and other businesses acquire broadband Internet access
service from an ISP to enable patrons to access the Internet from their respective establishments,
provision of such service by the premise operator would not itself be considered a broadband Internet
access service unless it was offered to patrons as a retail mass market service, as we define it here.
71

Likewise, when a user employs, for example, a wireless router or a Wi-Fi hotspot to create a personal Wi-
Fi network that is not intentionally offered for the benefit of others, he or she is not offering a broadband
Internet access service under our definition, because the user is not marketing and selling such service to
residential customers, small business, and other end-user customers such as schools and libraries.
2. Broadband Internet Access Service Is an Information Service Under the Act
26. In deciding how to classify broadband Internet access service, we find that the best
reading of the relevant definitional provisions of the Act supports classifying broadband Internet access
service as an information service. Section 3 of the Act defines an �information service� as �the offering
of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making
available information via telecommunications, and includes electronic publishing, but does not include
any use of any such capability for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system
or the management of a telecommunications service.�
72
Section 3 defines a �telecommunications
service,� by contrast, as �the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such
classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used.�
73

Finally, section 3 defines �telecommunications��used in each of the prior two definitions�as �the
transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of inform
s
service,� by contrast, as �the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such
classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used.�
73

Finally, section 3 defines �telecommunications��used in each of the prior two definitions�as �the
transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user�s choosing,
66
Id. at 17965-66, paras. 112-13; Title II Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 5696, para. 207; see also Illinois DoIT Comments at
1-2 (�We believe it is important to highlight this distinction between BIAS and non-BIAS data services to allow
development of innovative business models that address consumer needs, that are not met through a standard BIAS
offering.�).
67
Title II Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 5697, para. 209.
68
Cox Comments at 33.
69
Open Internet Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 17933, para. 47.
70
Id. Consistent with past Commissions, we note that the transparency rule we adopt today applies only so far as
the limits of an ISP�s control over the transmission of data to or from its broadband customers.
71
See Open Internet Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 17935, para. 52. Although not bound by the transparency rule we adopt
today, we encourage premise operators to disclose relevant restrictions on broadband service they make available to
their patrons. See id. at 17936, para. 163.
72
47 U.S.C. � 153(24).
73
47 U.S.C. � 153(53).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-166
11
without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received.�
74
Prior to the Title II
Order the Commission had long interpreted and applied these terms to classify various forms of Internet
access service as information services�a conclusion affirmed as reasonable by the Supreme Court in
Brand X.
75
Our action here simply returns to that prior approach.
27
66
11
without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received.�
74
Prior to the Title II
Order the Commission had long interpreted and applied these terms to classify various forms of Internet
access service as information services�a conclusion affirmed as reasonable by the Supreme Court in
Brand X.
75
Our action here simply returns to that prior approach.
27. When interpreting a statute it administers, the Commission, like all agencies, �must
operate �within the bounds of reasonable interpretation.� And reasonable statutory interpretation must
account for both �the specific context in which . . . language is used� and �the broader context of the
statute as a whole.��
76
Below, we first explore the meaning of the �capability� contemplated in the
statutory definition of �information service,� and find that broadband Internet access service provides
consumers the �capability� to engage in all of the information processes listed in the information service
definition. We also find that broadband Internet access service likewise provides information processing
functionalities itself, such as DNS and caching, which satisfy the capabilities set forth in the information
service definition. We then address what �capabilities� we believe are being �offered� by ISPs, and
whether these are reasonably viewed as separate from or inextricably intertwined with transmission, and
find that broadband Internet access service offerings inextricably intertwine these information processing
capabilities with transmission.
28. We find that applying our understanding of the statutory definitions to broadband Internet
access service as it is offered today most soundly leads to the conclusion that it is an information service
r inextricably intertwined with transmission, and
find that broadband Internet access service offerings inextricably intertwine these information processing
capabilities with transmission.
28. We find that applying our understanding of the statutory definitions to broadband Internet
access service as it is offered today most soundly leads to the conclusion that it is an information service.
Although the Internet marketplace has continued to develop in the years since the earliest classification
decisions, broadband Internet access service offerings still involve a number of �capabilities� within the
meaning of the section 3 definition of information services, including critical capabilities that all ISP
customers must use for the service to work as it does today. While many popular uses of the Internet
have shifted over time, the record reveals that broadband Internet access service continues to offer
information service capabilities that typical users both expect and rely upon. Indeed, the basic nature of
Internet service��[p]rovid[ing] consumers with a comprehensive capability for manipulating information
using the Internet via high-speed telecommunications��has remained the same since the Supreme Court
upheld the Commission�s similar classification of cable modem service as an information service twelve
years ago.
77

29. A body of precedent from the courts and the Commission served as the backdrop for the
1996 Act and informed the Commission�s original interpretation and implementation of the statutory
definitions of �telecommunications,� �telecommunications service,� and �information service.� The
classification decisions in the Title II Order discounted or ignored much of that precedent
ago.
77

29. A body of precedent from the courts and the Commission served as the backdrop for the
1996 Act and informed the Commission�s original interpretation and implementation of the statutory
definitions of �telecommunications,� �telecommunications service,� and �information service.� The
classification decisions in the Title II Order discounted or ignored much of that precedent. Without
viewing ourselves as formally bound by that prior precedent,
78
we find it eminently reasonable, as a legal
matter, to give significant weight to that pre-1996 Act precedent in resolving how the statutory definitions
apply to broadband Internet access service, enabling us to resolve statutory ambiguity in a manner that we
believe best reflects Congress�s understanding and intent.
79

74
47 U.S.C. � 153(50).
75
Brand X, 545 U.S. at 998 (finding �reasonable� �the Commission�s understanding of the nature of cable modem
service� and affirming its classification as an information service).
76
Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427, 2442 (2014).
77
Brand X, 545 U.S. at 987.
78
Our analysis thus is not at odds with the statement in USTelecom that the 1996 Act definitions were not �intended
to freeze in place the Commission�s existing classification of various services.� USTelecom, 825 F.3d at 703; see
also, e.g., Free Press Reply at 10 (arguing that the Commission should not �base its current judgments solely in
analogies to proceedings from the Bell era�).
79
See, e.g., Global Crossing Telecomms., Inc. v. Metrophones Telecomms., Inc., 550 U.S. 45, 48 (2007)
(�[R]egulatory history helps to illuminate the proper interpretation and application� of the provisions of the Act at
(continued�.)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-166
12
a. Broadband Internet Access Service Information Processing
Capabilities
30. We begin by evaluating the �information service� definition and conclude that it
encompasses broadband Internet access service
007)
(�[R]egulatory history helps to illuminate the proper interpretation and application� of the provisions of the Act at
(continued�.)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-166
12
a. Broadband Internet Access Service Information Processing
Capabilities
30. We begin by evaluating the �information service� definition and conclude that it
encompasses broadband Internet access service. Broadband Internet access service includes
�capabilit[ies]� meeting the information service definition under a range of reasonable interpretations of
that term. In other contexts, the Commission has looked to dictionary definitions and found the term
�capability� to be �broad and expansive,� including the concepts of �potential ability� and �the capacity
to be used, treated, or developed for a particular purpose.�
80
Because broadband Internet access service
necessarily has the capacity or potential ability to be used to engage in the activities within the
information service definition��generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving,
utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications�
81
�we conclude that it is best
understood to have those �capabilit[ies].� The record reflects that fundamental purposes of broadband
Internet access service are for its use in �generating� and �making available� information to others, for
example through social media and file sharing;
82
�acquiring� and �retrieving� information from sources
such as websites and online streaming and audio applications, gaming applications, and file sharing
applications;
83
�storing� information in the cloud and remote servers, and via file sharing applications;
84

�transforming� and �processing� information such as by manipulating images and documents, online
gaming use, and through applications that offer the ability to send and receive email, cloud computing and
(Continued from previous page)
issue there); Brand X, 545 U.S
sharing
applications;
83
�storing� information in the cloud and remote servers, and via file sharing applications;
84

�transforming� and �processing� information such as by manipulating images and documents, online
gaming use, and through applications that offer the ability to send and receive email, cloud computing and
(Continued from previous page)
issue there); Brand X, 545 U.S. at 992-93 (�Congress passed the definitions in the Communications Act against the
background of [the Commission�s Computer Inquiries] regulatory history, and we may assume that the parallel
terms �telecommunications service� and �information service� substantially incorporated their meaning, as the
Commission has held.�); ADTRAN Comments at 10 (�This precedent is relevant not simply as stare decisis, but
because the Commission in those previous decisions had analyzed the facts, nature of the services, and the
legislative interplay and history to conclude that BIAS is an information service.�); ACA Comments at 44.
Consistent with this approach as a traditional tool of statutory interpretation, we reject arguments that suggest that
we should disregard this precedent largely out-of-hand. See, e.g., Free Press Reply at 11 (�[T]he MFJ and Computer
Inquiries were based in large part on the Commission�s interpretation of its own rules and authority, but the passage
of the 1996 Act superseded them.�); Public Knowledge Reply at 32 (�[T]he 1996 Telecommunications Act
supersedes the MFJ.�). More generally, of course, this precedent�Brand X in particular�demonstrates that the Act
does not compel a telecommunications service classification. See U.S. Telecom Ass�n v. FCC, 855 F.3d 381, 384
(D.C. Cir. 2017) (Srinivasan, J., and Tatel, J., concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc) (�The issue in Brand X
was whether the Communications Act compelled the FCC to classify cable broadband ISPs as telecommunications
providers subject to regulatory treatment as common carriers
not compel a telecommunications service classification. See U.S. Telecom Ass�n v. FCC, 855 F.3d 381, 384
(D.C. Cir. 2017) (Srinivasan, J., and Tatel, J., concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc) (�The issue in Brand X
was whether the Communications Act compelled the FCC to classify cable broadband ISPs as telecommunications
providers subject to regulatory treatment as common carriers. The Court answered that question no.�).
80
Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, et al., CC Docket Nos.
01-338, 98-147, 96-98, Report and Order and Order on Remand and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18
FCC Rcd 16978, 17020, para. 54 & n.194 (2003) (Triennial Review Order), rev�d on other grounds U.S. Telecom
Ass�n v. FCC, 359 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
81
47 U.S.C. � 153(24).
82
See, e.g., ACA Comments, Exh. B, Decl. of Chris Kyle at 2, Exh. C, Decl. of Brian Lynch at 2, Exh. E, Decl. of
Steve Timcoe at 2; Cisco Comments at 14, n.43; Comcast Comments at 13; CenturyLink Comments at 23; Cox
Comments at 9; Free State Foundation Comments at 10; Mobile Future Comments at 10-11; Verizon Comments at
35.
83
See, e.g., Cisco Comments at 14, n.43; Free State Foundation Comments at 10; Mobile Future Comments at 10-
11; ADTRAN Comments at 5-6; CenturyLink Comments at 21-23; Verizon Comments at 35; Comcast Comments at
12; Cox Comments at 9; NCTA Comments at 13-14.
84
See, e.g., Verizon Comments at 35; CenturyLink Comments at 23; Cisco Comments at 14, n.43; Comcast
Comments at 13; Cox Comments at 9; Free State Foundation Comments at 10; Mobile Future Comments at 10-11;
NCTA Comments at 13-14.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-166
13
machine learning capabilities;
85
and �utilizing� information by interacting with stored data.
86
These are
just a few examples of how broadband Internet access service enables customers to generate, acquire,
store, transform, process, retrieve, utilize, and make available information
Future Comments at 10-11;
NCTA Comments at 13-14.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-166
13
machine learning capabilities;
85
and �utilizing� information by interacting with stored data.
86
These are
just a few examples of how broadband Internet access service enables customers to generate, acquire,
store, transform, process, retrieve, utilize, and make available information. These are not merely
incidental uses of broadband Internet access service�rather, because it not only has �the capacity to be
used� for these �particular purpose[s]� but was designed and intended to do so,
87
we find that broadband
Internet access is best interpreted as providing customers with the �capability� for such interactions with
third party providers.
88

31. We also find that broadband Internet access is an information service irrespective of
whether it provides the entirety of any end user functionality or whether it provides end user functionality
in tandem with edge providers.
89
We do not believe that Congress, in focusing on the �offering of a
capability,� intended the classification question to turn on an analysis of which capabilities the end user
selects. Further, we are unpersuaded by commenters who assert that in order to be considered an
�information service,� an ISP must not only offer customers the �capability� for interacting with
information that may be offered by third parties (�click-through�), but must also provide the ultimate
content and applications themselves.
90
Although there is no dispute that many edge providers likewise
perform functions to facilitate information processing capabilities,
91
they all depend on the combination
of information-processing and transmission that ISPs make available through broadband Internet access
service.
92
The fundamental purpose of broadband Internet access service is to �enable a constant flow of
85
See, e.g., ACA Comments, Exh. B, Decl. of Chris Kyle at 2, Exh. C, Decl
orm functions to facilitate information processing capabilities,
91
they all depend on the combination
of information-processing and transmission that ISPs make available through broadband Internet access
service.
92
The fundamental purpose of broadband Internet access service is to �enable a constant flow of
85
See, e.g., ACA Comments, Exh. B, Decl. of Chris Kyle at 2, Exh. C, Decl. of Brian Lynch at 2, Exh. E, Decl. of
Steve Timcoe at 2 (asserting that their broadband Internet access services grants their customers the capability to
transform content at their request); Cisco Comments at 14, n.43 (asserting that broadband Internet access users
transform and process information every time they input a plaintext command into a browser or search engine); Cox
Comments at 9; Mobile Future Comments at 10-11; CenturyLink Comments at 22-24; Free State Foundation
Comments at 10; Verizon Comments at 35; Comcast Comments at 13.
86
See, e.g., CenturyLink Comments at 21- 22; Cisco Comments at 14, n.43; Comcast Comments at 13; Cox
Comments at 9; Free State Foundation Comments at 10; Mobile Future Comments at 11; NCTA Comments at 13-
14.
87
Triennial Review Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 17020, para. 54 n.194 (discussing definition of �capability�).
88
AT&T Comments at 3, 4 (�Giving consumers the �capability for� such interactions with third party providers is of
course the very essence of broadband Internet access.�); see also NCTA Comments at 13; Comcast Comments at 12;
Verizon Comments at 35; Charter Comments at 14; NCTA Comments at 13; Reason Foundation Comments at 9;
ADTRAN at 5-6; Alaska Communications Comments at 4; ACA Comments at 50-51; CenturyLink Comments at
20; CTIA Comments at 28-29; Free State Foundation Comments at 2; ITIF Comments at 12-13; Inmarsat Comments
at 9-10; LGBT Technology Partnership Comments at 4; Mobile Future Comments at 10-11; T-Mobile Comments at
13; AT&T Reply at 60; Comcast Reply at 4-6; CTIA Reply at 22; Free State Foundation Comments at 10; Cox
Reply
ations Comments at 4; ACA Comments at 50-51; CenturyLink Comments at
20; CTIA Comments at 28-29; Free State Foundation Comments at 2; ITIF Comments at 12-13; Inmarsat Comments
at 9-10; LGBT Technology Partnership Comments at 4; Mobile Future Comments at 10-11; T-Mobile Comments at
13; AT&T Reply at 60; Comcast Reply at 4-6; CTIA Reply at 22; Free State Foundation Comments at 10; Cox
Reply at 3. We further observe that even though the record reflects that broadband Internet access service possesses
all of the statutorily enumerated �capabilities,� the use of the conjunction �or� among the listed capabilities requires
that a service only offer one capability to bring a service within the statutory definition of information service. See
Comcast Comments at 19; Free State Foundation Comments at 10, 12; AT&T Comments at 3.
89
See NCTA Reply at 6.
90
See Public Knowledge Comments at 27; Internet Engineers Comments at 20-21; CDT Comments at 5; see also
OTI New America Comments at 29-30 (asserting that when �information service� was defined in the MFJ, the
phrase �meant that the information service provider itself is engaged in the processing of the information [but] the
examples listed in the NPRM are not that,� and �[i]f a telecommunications service were transformed into an
information service because it made available the information services of others, then no general use service could
ever constitute a telecom service.� (emphasis in original)); Peha Reclassification Comments at 1; Ben Kreuter
Comments at 4; New Media Rights Comments at 7; Netflix Reply at 4.
91
Cf., e.g., Mitchell Lazarus Comments at 2 (�Examples are Facebook, Wikipedia, and almost any other website.�)
service because it made available the information services of others, then no general use service could
ever constitute a telecom service.� (emphasis in original)); Peha Reclassification Comments at 1; Ben Kreuter
Comments at 4; New Media Rights Comments at 7; Netflix Reply at 4.
91
Cf., e.g., Mitchell Lazarus Comments at 2 (�Examples are Facebook, Wikipedia, and almost any other website.�).
92
See Comcast Comments at 14 (�When a consumer uploads new content to Facebook, for instance, it is not only
Facebook that provides the information-processing functionality necessary for such activity; it is also the BIAS
(continued�.)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-166
14
computer-mediated communications between end-user devices and various servers and routers to
facilitate interaction with online content.�
93

32. From the earliest decisions classifying Internet access service, the Commission
recognized that even when ISPs enable subscribers to access third party content and services, that can
constitute �a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing,
or making available information via telecommunications.�
94
As the Commission explained in the Stevens
Report, �[s]ubscribers can retrieve files from the World Wide Web, and browse their contents, because
their service provider offers the �capability for . . . acquiring, . . . retrieving [and] utilizing . . .
information.��
95
Thus, even where an ISP enables end-users to access the content or applications of a
third party, the Commission nonetheless found that constituted the requisite information service
�capability.�
96
When the Title II Order attempted to evaluate customer perception based on their usage of
broadband Internet access service, it failed to persuasively grapple with the relevant implications of prior
Commission classification precedent
access the content or applications of a
third party, the Commission nonetheless found that constituted the requisite information service
�capability.�
96
When the Title II Order attempted to evaluate customer perception based on their usage of
broadband Internet access service, it failed to persuasively grapple with the relevant implications of prior
Commission classification precedent. The Title II Order argued that broadband Internet access service
primarily is used to access content, applications, and services from third parties unaffiliated with the ISP
in support of the view that customers perceive it as a separate offering of telecommunications.
97
The Title
(Continued from previous page)
provider whose information-processing capabilities enable consumers to connect and interact with Facebook�s
servers in the first place.�).
93
NCTA Reply at 7; see also Free State Foundation Reply at 30 (explaining that ISPs� coordination with third
parties, by itself, does not alter the �nature of the functionality or service that broadband ISPs ultimately offer to end
users. In such circumstances, it is the broadband ISPs that combine third-party supplied functionalities with their
own and ultimately provide the integrated service offering to end users�with end users routinely unaware of
whether or which particular functions might happen to be performed by third parties rather than broadband ISPs�);
infra para. 56.
94
See, e.g., Wireless Broadband Internet Access Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 5910, para. 25; BPL-Enabled Broadband
Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 13285-86, para. 9; Wireline Broadband Classification Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 14860-61,
para. 9; Cable Modem Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 4821-22, para. 37; Stevens Report, 13 FCC Rcd at 11537, para. 76.
95
Stevens Report, 13 FCC Rcd at 11538, para. 76 (emphasis added); see also id. at 11538-39, para
oadband Internet Access Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 5910, para. 25; BPL-Enabled Broadband
Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 13285-86, para. 9; Wireline Broadband Classification Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 14860-61,
para. 9; Cable Modem Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 4821-22, para. 37; Stevens Report, 13 FCC Rcd at 11537, para. 76.
95
Stevens Report, 13 FCC Rcd at 11538, para. 76 (emphasis added); see also id. at 11538-39, para. 78 (explaining
with specific respect to e-mail that the ISP �does not send that message directly to the recipient� akin to a
��paperless fax,�� but instead sends it to the recipient�s mail server, which stores it until it is further stored, rewritten,
forwarded or otherwise processed). Attempts to distinguish the Commission�s classification precedent thus are
unfounded insofar as they fail to account for this aspect of the Commission�s analysis in those orders. See, e.g.,
Scott Jordan Reply at 9 (�The Stevens Report concluded that dial-up Internet access service was an information
service because ISP-provided webpage hosting, webpage caching, and email offered such capabilities, not because
dial-up Internet access service enabled an end user to utilize third party information service applications.� (footnotes
omitted)).
96
See, e.g., ACA Comments at 43 (��[O]ffering of a capability� for engaging in all of these activities� such as using
Facebook or YouTube �is exactly what is provided by broadband Internet access� (quoting U.S. Telecom Ass�n v.
FCC, 855 F.3d 381, 395 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (Brown, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc) and citing Stevens
Report, 13 FCC Rcd at 11537-38, para. 76); AT&T Comments at 69-70 (�As the Commission and Solicitor General
explained in Brand X, Internet access inherently offers the capability to �click[] through� to third-party websites and
obtain the �contents of the requested web page[],� allowing a subscriber to �interact[] with stored data. . .
ng from denial of rehearing en banc) and citing Stevens
Report, 13 FCC Rcd at 11537-38, para. 76); AT&T Comments at 69-70 (�As the Commission and Solicitor General
explained in Brand X, Internet access inherently offers the capability to �click[] through� to third-party websites and
obtain the �contents of the requested web page[],� allowing a subscriber to �interact[] with stored data. . . . The
Commission�s reclassification decision erroneously turned this point on its head, finding that Internet access is a
pure transmission service because it is �useful to consumers today primarily as a conduit for reaching modular
content, applications, and services that are provided by unaffiliated third parties.� To the contrary, it is precisely
because Internet access is useful to consumers for these purposes that it falls squarely within the statutory definition
of information service.�); USTelecom Comments at 31-32; Comcast Reply at 11 (�[T]he definition of �information
service� nowhere requires that ISP capabilities be solely responsible for any end-user functionality; it requires only
that ISPs �offer� an integrated �capability� beyond mere transmission, which they unquestionably do.�); Cox Reply
at 5-6; NCTA Reply at 6-7; Verizon Reply at 32, 34.
97
See, e.g., Title II Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 5753-55, paras. 347-50; see also USTelecom, 825 F.3d at 698-99; AARP
Comments at 91; Atty�s General et al. Comments at 13-15; Internet Engineers Comments at 13; OTI New America
(continued�.)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-166
15
II Order offers no explanation as to why its narrower view of �capability� was more reasonable than the
Commission�s previous, long-standing view (other than seeking to advance the classification outcome
that Order was driving towards). Consequently, the Title II Order essentially assumed away the legal
question of whether end-users perceive broadband Internet access service as offering them the �capability
for . . . acquiring, . .
narrower view of �capability� was more reasonable than the
Commission�s previous, long-standing view (other than seeking to advance the classification outcome
that Order was driving towards). Consequently, the Title II Order essentially assumed away the legal
question of whether end-users perceive broadband Internet access service as offering them the �capability
for . . . acquiring, . . . retrieving [and] utilizing . . . information� under the broader reading of �capability�
in prior Commission precedent.
33. But even if �capability� were understood as requiring more of the information processing
to be performed by the classified service itself, we find that broadband Internet access service meets that
standard. Not only do ISPs offer end users the capability to interact with information online in each and
every one of the ways set forth above, they also do so through a variety of functionally integrated
information processing components that are part and parcel of the broadband Internet access service
offering itself.
98
In particular, we conclude that DNS and caching functionalities, as well as certain other
information processing capabilities offered by ISPs,
99
are integrated information processing capabilities
offered as part of broadband Internet access service to consumers today.
100

34. DNS. We find that DNS is an indispensable functionality of broadband Internet access
service.
101
DNS is a core function of broadband Internet access service that involves the capabilities of
generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing and making available
(Continued from previous page)
Comments at 28; Public Knowledge Comments at 31-32, 39; RISE Stronger Comments at 15-16; Electronic Frontier
Foundation (EFF) Comments at 17-19; OTI New America Reply at 18-19
ore function of broadband Internet access service that involves the capabilities of
generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing and making available
(Continued from previous page)
Comments at 28; Public Knowledge Comments at 31-32, 39; RISE Stronger Comments at 15-16; Electronic Frontier
Foundation (EFF) Comments at 17-19; OTI New America Reply at 18-19.
98
See, e.g., CenturyLink Comments at 24; AT&T Comments at 4 (�But even if ISPs had to provide �data-
processing� or �data storage� functionalities of their own before Internet access could qualify as an information
service, Internet access would still qualify as such because it invariably includes such functionalities (e.g., DNS
and/or caching).�); Comcast Comments at 7-8 (�Not only does BIAS still offer end users the capability to interact
with information online in each and every one of the ways set forth in the Act�s �information service� definition, it
also does so through a variety of functionally integrated information-processing components�such as Domain
Name Service (�DNS�) functionalities; spam, malware, and other consumer protection security features; caching;
email; storage; and other capabilities�that are part and parcel of the �offer� of broadband service and that confirm
the correctness of the information service classification.�).
99
In addition to DNS and caching, the record reflects that ISPs may also offer a variety of additional features that
consist of information processing functionality inextricably intertwined with the underlying service. See, e.g.,
CenturyLink Comments at 26. These additional features include, and are not limited to: email, speed test servers,
backup and support services, geolocation-based advertising, data storage, parental controls, unique programming
content, spam protection, pop-up blockers, instant messaging services, on-the-go access to Wi-Fi hotspots, and
various widgets, toolbars, and applications
See, e.g.,
CenturyLink Comments at 26. These additional features include, and are not limited to: email, speed test servers,
backup and support services, geolocation-based advertising, data storage, parental controls, unique programming
content, spam protection, pop-up blockers, instant messaging services, on-the-go access to Wi-Fi hotspots, and
various widgets, toolbars, and applications. See, e.g., CenturyLink Comments at 24-26; AT&T Comments at 80-81.
While we do not find the offering of these information processing capabilities determinative of the classification of
broadband Internet access service, their inclusion in the broadband Internet access service, and the capabilities and
functionalities necessary to make these features possible, further support the �information service� classification.
See CTIA Comments at 40; AT&T Reply at 77 (�The additional functionalities offered by most ISPs are plainly
information services, and because they are routinely �offer[ed]� with Internet access as part of a service bundle, they
independently compel an �information service� classification� (citation omitted)); Comcast Comments at 7-8;
CenturyLink Comments at 24.
100
See Peha Reclassification Comments at 5 (�It is not relevant which services were offered or used decades ago. It
is the Internet services and technology of 2017 that matter.�); cf. Commercial Network Services Comments at 1
(�The definition of �information service� was created by the telecommunications act of 1996, at a time when
CompuServe, America Online and Prodigy were how America�s spent their time online and all were accessed by
dial-up telephone modem company.�); ACLU/EFF Reply at 13; OTI New America Reply at 8.
101
While we accept that DNS is not necessary for transmission, we reject assertions that it is not indispensable to the
broadband Internet access service customers use�and expect�today. But see, e.g., Peha Reclassification
Comments at 13, 18; CDT Comments at 8-9; ITIF Comments at 13
ll were accessed by
dial-up telephone modem company.�); ACLU/EFF Reply at 13; OTI New America Reply at 8.
101
While we accept that DNS is not necessary for transmission, we reject assertions that it is not indispensable to the
broadband Internet access service customers use�and expect�today. But see, e.g., Peha Reclassification
Comments at 13, 18; CDT Comments at 8-9; ITIF Comments at 13.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-166
16
information.
102
DNS is used to facilitate the information retrieval capabilities that are inherent in Internet
access.
103
DNS allows ��click through� access from one web page to another, and its computer processing
functions analyze user queries to determine which website (and server) would respond best to the user�s
request.�
104
And �[b]ecause it translates human language (e.g., the name of a website) into the numerical
data (i.e., an IP address) that computers can process, it is indispensable to ordinary users as they navigate
the Internet.�
105
Without DNS, a consumer would not be able to access a website by typing its advertised
name (e.g., fcc.gov or cnn.com).
106
The Brand X Court recognized the importance of DNS, concluding
that �[f]or an Internet user, �DNS is a must. . . . [N]early all of the Internet�s network services use DNS.
That includes the World Wide Web, electronic mail, remote terminal access, and file transfer.��
107
While
ISPs are not the sole providers of DNS services,
108
the vast majority of ordinary consumers rely upon the
DNS functionality provided by their ISP,
109
and the absence of ISP-provided DNS would fundamentally
change the online experience for the consumer
ork services use DNS.
That includes the World Wide Web, electronic mail, remote terminal access, and file transfer.��
107
While
ISPs are not the sole providers of DNS services,
108
the vast majority of ordinary consumers rely upon the
DNS functionality provided by their ISP,
109
and the absence of ISP-provided DNS would fundamentally
change the online experience for the consumer.
110
We also observe that DNS, as it is used today, provides
102
See Nominum Comments at 2; Sandvine Comments at 2 (explaining that such servers generate recursive DNS
queries, acquire and store domain name information, transform and process end user queries, retrieve domain name
data from the Internet, utilize domain name data, and make available information of various types that is stored in
the DNS); AT&T Comments at 73 (asserting that DNS provides ISPs with data-processing and data storage
functionalities of its own).
103
See CTIA Comments at 39; AT&T Comments at 74-75.
104
AT&T Comments at 74.
105
AT&T Comments at 73 (citations omitted); see also Reason Foundation Comments at 9-10 (�DNS is of
fundamental importance to the functionality of the Internet, enabling users� devices, though web browsers, search
engines and other tools, to identify and connect to websites and web pages. . . . Eliminating DNS would likely
dramatically reduce the value of the entire domain naming system, harming both providers of content and services
and users of that content and those services.�).
106
AT&T Comments at 74-75; see also Farsight Comments at 2 (explaining that �With the Domain Name System,
you�re able to easily get to Google by just typing in google.com. Without the Domain Name System you�d have to
remember and enter a numeric IPv4 address such as 172.217.7.228, or, even worse, an IPv6 address such as
2607:f8b0:4004:802::2004
ers of that content and those services.�).
106
AT&T Comments at 74-75; see also Farsight Comments at 2 (explaining that �With the Domain Name System,
you�re able to easily get to Google by just typing in google.com. Without the Domain Name System you�d have to
remember and enter a numeric IPv4 address such as 172.217.7.228, or, even worse, an IPv6 address such as
2607:f8b0:4004:802::2004. This would fundamentally (and negatively) change a broadband Internet user�s online
experience.�); Fred Baker Comments at 2; Sandvine Comments at 1; Cox Comments at 11; Wireline Broadband
Classification Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 14864, para. 15 (�[A]n end user of wireline broadband Internet access service
cannot reach a third party�s web site without access to the Domain Nam[e] Service (DNS) capability. . . . The end
user therefore receives more than transparent transmission whenever he or she accesses the Internet.�); see also
Nominum Reply at 3.
107
Brand X, 545 U.S. at 999 (quoting P. Albitz & C. Liu, DNS and BIND 10 (4
th
ed. 2001)); see also AT&T
Comments at 75 (quoting Brand X, 545 U.S. at 998, 1000).
108
See, e.g., Internet Engineers Comments at 26; Commercial Network Services Comments at 3; Atkins Comments
at 1-2; David Ha Comments at 3; Benjamin Kreuter Comments at 8.
109
See, e.g., Nominum Reply at 4 (�[A]pproximately 97 percent of consumers receive their DNS service through
their ISP�s broadband offering. . . . This sky-high adoption of and reliance on the DNS service provided by ISPs,
particularly when there are other alternatives on the market, many of which are free, indicates that consumers want
and expect their broadband service to include DNS. Much as consumers expect to purchase a car with a steering
wheel and tires, consumers expect a turnkey broadband service from their ISPs and that includes DNS services.�)
on of and reliance on the DNS service provided by ISPs,
particularly when there are other alternatives on the market, many of which are free, indicates that consumers want
and expect their broadband service to include DNS. Much as consumers expect to purchase a car with a steering
wheel and tires, consumers expect a turnkey broadband service from their ISPs and that includes DNS services.�).
110
See, e.g., Farsight Comments at 2; Charter Comments at 14-15 (explaining that DNS is more than merely
incidental to the broadband Internet service that ISPs provide, and that without DNS, broadband Internet access
would cease to resemble the seamless information retrieval service to which customers have become accustomed);
Sandvine Comments at 2 (�Yes, it is correct that for the overwhelming majority of customers, the ISP is performing
the DNS function. It is a rare customer in the United States that knows how to manually change their DNS settings,
takes time to do so, and does so on all of their many connected devices.�); AT&T Comments at 74 (asserting that
�[v]irtually all consumers today rely on their broadband ISP to include DNS look-up functionality as an integral part
of broadband Internet access service� and that �[m]ass-market consumers would find broadband services without
(continued�.)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-166
17
more than a functionally integrated address-translation capability, but also enables other capabilities
critical to providing a functional broadband Internet access service to the consumer, including for
example, a variety of underlying network functionality information associated with name service,
alternative routing mechanisms, and information distribution.
111

35. The treatment of similar functions in MFJ precedent bolsters our conclusion
apability, but also enables other capabilities
critical to providing a functional broadband Internet access service to the consumer, including for
example, a variety of underlying network functionality information associated with name service,
alternative routing mechanisms, and information distribution.
111

35. The treatment of similar functions in MFJ precedent bolsters our conclusion.
112
In
particular, when analyzing �gateway� functionalities by which BOCs would provide end-users with
access to third party information services, the MFJ court found that �address translation,� which enabled
�the consumer [to] use an abbreviated code or signal . . . in order to access the information service
provider� such as through �the translation of a mnemonic code into [a] telephone number,� rendered
gateways an information service.
113
The �address translation� gateway function appears highly analogous
to the DNS function of broadband Internet access service, which enables end users to use easier-to-
(Continued from previous page)
DNS utterly useless for accessing the Internet�); Satchell Comments at 26 (�DNS is very useful to the customer.
The use of names instead of numbers is key to the acceptance of the Web by the general public. Without DNS, the
Internet would not be as ubiquitous as it is today.�); see also Sandvine Comments at 3 (�ISP DNS servers tend to be
superior to 3rd party DNS servers simply because they reside within the ISP network and are distributed much more
widely and locally than 3rd party DNS servers, which tend to be centralized in just a few datacenters to serve the
entire U.S. As a result, queries to a 3rd party DNS may traverse a large section of the country to get to a 3rd party
DNS. As the industry knows, the trend is towards more locally distributed content and services; the closer they are
to the end user the better the performance will be.�).
111
See CenturyLink App. 2, Bronsdon Decl
d to be centralized in just a few datacenters to serve the
entire U.S. As a result, queries to a 3rd party DNS may traverse a large section of the country to get to a 3rd party
DNS. As the industry knows, the trend is towards more locally distributed content and services; the closer they are
to the end user the better the performance will be.�).
111
See CenturyLink App. 2, Bronsdon Decl. at 7-8 (asserting that DNS enables a variety of underlying network
functionality information such as name service (NS), mail exchange (MX) and service (SRV) records; enables
mechanisms, such as canonical name (CNAME), delegation name (DNAME), and pointer (PTR) records for
selecting alternative routes to information; and facilitates information distribution or content delivery systems); Cox
Comments at 10, 11; Comcast Comments 15-16; Farsight Comments at 3 (�DNS is widely used as more than �just�
an addressing scheme.�).
112
Despite the fact that the telecommunications management exception (and information service definition more
broadly) was drawn most directly from the MFJ, the Title II Order essentially ignored MFJ precedent when
concluding that DNS fell within the statutory telecommunications management exception. See generally Title II
Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 5765-69, 5770, paras. 365-69, 371; see also, e.g., INCOMPAS Comments at 54-55 (arguing
that finding DNS to fall within the telecommunications management exception is �in keeping with Computer II�);
cf. id. at 56 (�[A]s Justice Scalia argued, �DNS �is scarcely more than routing information, which is expressly
excluded from the definition of �information service� by the telecommunications systems management exception set
out in the last clause of section 3(24) of the Act.���); NASUCA Comments at 16; OTI New America Comments at
29-30
nagement exception is �in keeping with Computer II�);
cf. id. at 56 (�[A]s Justice Scalia argued, �DNS �is scarcely more than routing information, which is expressly
excluded from the definition of �information service� by the telecommunications systems management exception set
out in the last clause of section 3(24) of the Act.���); NASUCA Comments at 16; OTI New America Comments at
29-30. In addition, even the Title II Order�s limited use of Computer Inquiries precedent focused mostly on
relatively high-level Commission statements about the general sorts of capabilities that could be basic (or adjunct-to-
basic) or drew analogies to specific holdings that are at best ambiguous as to their application to broadband Internet
access service. See, e.g., Title II Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 5768-69, 5771-72, paras. 367, 373, 375; see also, e.g.,
Barbara van Schewick and Patrick Leerssen Reply at 29-31 (citing general statements in Computer Inquiries
precedent regarding �data processing features necessary for the operation of a packet-switched network�).
113
U.S. v. West. Elec. Co., Inc., 673 F. Supp. 525, 593 & n.307 (D.D.C. 1987) (MFJ Initial Gateway Decision), aff�d
in part and rev�d in part on other grounds, 900 F.2d 283 (D.C. Cir. 1990). We recognize that gateway
functionalities and broadband Internet access service are not precisely coextensive in scope. See, e.g., Public
Knowledge Reply at 33 (arguing that �broadband internet does not provide, for example, �billing management� for
all the edge services that users access, or �introductory information content��). We do, however, find similarities
between functionalities such as address translation and storage and retrieval to key functionalities provided by ISPs
as part of broadband Internet access service, and we conclude the court found such gateway and similar
functionalities independently sufficient to warrant an information service classification under the MFJ. See, e.g.,
U.S. v. West. Elec. Co., 714 F. Supp
find similarities
between functionalities such as address translation and storage and retrieval to key functionalities provided by ISPs
as part of broadband Internet access service, and we conclude the court found such gateway and similar
functionalities independently sufficient to warrant an information service classification under the MFJ. See, e.g.,
U.S. v. West. Elec. Co., 714 F. Supp. 1, 19-20 (D.D.C. 1988) (MFJ Gateway/Storage & Retrieval Decision)
(analyzing storage and retrieval separately from other gateway functionalities); MFJ Initial Gateway Decision, 673
F. Supp. at 587 n.275 (observing that the transmission of information services at issue there �involves a number of
functions that by any fair reading of the term �information services� would be included in that definition�).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-166
18
remember domain names to initiate access to the associated IP addresses of edge providers. That MFJ
precedent, neglected by the Title II Order, thus supports our finding that the inclusion of DNS in
broadband Internet access service offerings likewise renders that service an information service.
114

36. We thus find that the Title II Order erred in finding that DNS functionalities fell within
the telecommunications systems management exception to the definition of �information service.�
115

That exception from the statutory information service definition was drawn from the language of the
MFJ,
116
and was understood as �directed at internal operations, not at services for customers or end
users.�
117
We interpret the concepts of �management, control, or operation�
118
in the telecommunications
management exception consistent with that understanding
service.�
115

That exception from the statutory information service definition was drawn from the language of the
MFJ,
116
and was understood as �directed at internal operations, not at services for customers or end
users.�
117
We interpret the concepts of �management, control, or operation�
118
in the telecommunications
management exception consistent with that understanding. Applying that interpretation, we find the
record reflects that little or nothing in the DNS look-up process is designed to help an ISP �manage� its
network; instead, DNS functionalities �provide stored information to end users to help them navigate the
Internet.�
119
As AT&T explains: �When an end user types a domain name into his or her browser and
sends a DNS query to an ISP, . . . the ISP . . . converts the human-language domain name into a numerical
IP address, and it then conveys that information back to the end user . . . [who] (via his or her browser)
thereafter sends a follow-up request for the Internet resources located at that numerical IP address.�
120

DNS does not merely �manage� a telecommunications service, as some commenters assert,
121
but rather is
114
We rely on this analogy between DNS and particular functions classified under pre-1996 Act precedent not
because the technologies are identical in all particulars, but because they share the same relevant characteristics for
purposes of making a classification decision under the Act. Given the close fit between DNS and the address
translation function classified as an information service under the MFJ coupled with the fact that the statutory
information service definition (and telecommunications management exception) was drawn more directly from the
MFJ, we find the MFJ precedent entitled to more weight than analogies to Computer Inquiries precedent
ision under the Act. Given the close fit between DNS and the address
translation function classified as an information service under the MFJ coupled with the fact that the statutory
information service definition (and telecommunications management exception) was drawn more directly from the
MFJ, we find the MFJ precedent entitled to more weight than analogies to Computer Inquiries precedent. We thus
are not persuaded by arguments seeking to analogize DNS to directory assistance, which the Commission classified
as �adjunct-to-basic� under the Computer Inquiries. See, e.g., OTI New America Comments at 33-34 (�The parallel
in telephone service is computer-assisted directory assistance, where a user can find the phone number (like an IP
address in BIAS) of a person based on their name (like a domain name in BIAS). This service has long been
adjunct-to-basic and did not transform telephone service into an information service. DNS similarly does not direct
a classification of BIAS as an information service.�); Barbara van Schewick and Patrick Leerssen Reply at 32-33;
Harold Hallikainen Comments at 13; Peha Reclassification Comments at 19; Ben Kreuter Comments at 4;
Commercial Network Services Comments at 3; Satchell Comments at 26.
115
Title II Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 5765-66, para. 366.
116
The court�s definition of information services excluded capabilities �for the management, control, or operation of
a telecommunication system or the management of a telecommunications service.� MFJ Initial Decision, 552 F.
Supp. at 229. Under the Communications Act, the definition of �information services� includes an identically-
worded �telecommunications management� exception. 47 U.S.C. � 153(24). Commission precedent and legislative
history likewise recognize that the definition was drawn from the MFJ. See, e.g., Non-Accounting Safeguards
Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 21954, para. 99; H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-458 at 126 (Jan
. Under the Communications Act, the definition of �information services� includes an identically-
worded �telecommunications management� exception. 47 U.S.C. � 153(24). Commission precedent and legislative
history likewise recognize that the definition was drawn from the MFJ. See, e.g., Non-Accounting Safeguards
Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 21954, para. 99; H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-458 at 126 (Jan. 31, 1996) (��Information service�
and �telecommunications� are defined based on the definition used in the Modification of Final Judgment.�).
117
United States v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 1989 WL 119060, *1 (D.D.C. Sept. 11, 1989) (citing Department of Justice,
United States v. Western Electric Company, Inc., and American Telephone & Telegraph Company; Competitive
Impact Statement in Connection With Proposed Modification of Final Judgment, Notice, 47 Fed. Reg. 7170, 7176
(Feb. 17, 1982) (DOJ Competitive Impact Statement)).
118
Although the exception is worded in terms of �management, control, or operation,� for convenience here we refer
to those collectively at times as �management� or the like.
119
AT&T Comments at 77-78; see also T-Mobile Comments at 14; Charter Comments at 13-14; CTIA Comments at
39-40; Harold Hallikainen Comments at 8; Verizon Comments at 58; AT&T Reply at 70-71; Cox Reply at 6-7;
CTIA Reply at 28-30; NCTA Reply at 9-10; Comcast Comments at 19.
120
AT&T Comments at 78.
121
CDT Comments at 8; ITIF Comments at 13; New Media Rights Comments at 4-5 (�[B]ecause these services
[like DNS, DHCP, caching, and others] are necessary to route, manage, or otherwise use BIAS, they fall under the
(continued�.)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-166
19
a function that is useful and essential to providing Internet access for the ordinary consumer.
122
We are
persuaded that �[w]ere DNS simply a management function, this would not be the case.�
123
Comparing
functions that would fall within the exception illustrates the distinction
otherwise use BIAS, they fall under the
(continued�.)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-166
19
a function that is useful and essential to providing Internet access for the ordinary consumer.
122
We are
persuaded that �[w]ere DNS simply a management function, this would not be the case.�
123
Comparing
functions that would fall within the exception illustrates the distinction. For example, in contrast to
DNS�s interaction with users and their applications,
124
�non-user, management-only protocols might
include things such as Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP), Network Control Protocol
(NETCONF), or DOCSIS bootfiles for controlling the configuration of cable modems.�
125
These
protocols support services that manage the network independent of the transmission of information
initiated by a user.
126

37. The Title II Order drew erroneous conclusions from Computer Inquiries precedent and
too quickly rejected objections to its treatment of DNS as meeting the telecommunications management
exception.
127
Under the Computer Inquiries framework, the Commission held that some capabilities
�may properly be associated with basic [common carrier] service without changing its nature, or with an
enhanced service without changing the classification of the latter as unregulated under Title II of the
Act.�
128
These commonly came to be known as �adjunct� capabilities.
129
The Commission has held that
functions it had classified as �adjunct-to-basic� under the Computer Inquiries framework will fall within
the statutory telecommunications management exception to the information service definition.
130

Drawing loose analogies to certain functions described as adjunct-to-basic under Commission precedent,
the Title II Order held that DNS fell within the telecommunications management exception.
38
it had classified as �adjunct-to-basic� under the Computer Inquiries framework will fall within
the statutory telecommunications management exception to the information service definition.
130

Drawing loose analogies to certain functions described as adjunct-to-basic under Commission precedent,
the Title II Order held that DNS fell within the telecommunications management exception.
38. The Title II Order incorrectly assumed that so long as a functionality was, in part, used in
a manner that could be viewed as adjunct-to-basic, it necessarily was adjunct-to-basic regardless of what
(Continued from previous page)
management exception embodied in the definition of information service.� (citations omitted)); AARP Comments at
85; WGAW Comments at 8.
122
Nominum Comments at 5 (asserting that the �features of DNS-based services are focused on enhancing the
consumer�s Internet experience and go well-beyond what is needed for the management and control of
telecommunications system�).
123
Sandvine Comments at 5; see also USTelecom Comments at 35 (asserting that DNS �capabilities uniformly
permit or enhance the use of the World Wide Web; they do not manage a telecommunications system or service�).
124
See IANA, Domain Name System (DNS) Parameters, https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters/dns-
parameters.xhtml (last visited Dec. 1, 2017) (for full set of information types supported by the DNS protocol).
125
Sandvine Comments at 5.
126
Other functions that would fall into the telecommunications systems management exception might include
information systems for account management and billing, configuration management, and the monitoring of failures
and other state information, and to keep track of which addresses are reachable through each of the interconnected
neighboring networks. See Peha Reclassification Comments at 20.
127
The same shortcomings are present in the Title II Order�s analysis of caching, as well
include
information systems for account management and billing, configuration management, and the monitoring of failures
and other state information, and to keep track of which addresses are reachable through each of the interconnected
neighboring networks. See Peha Reclassification Comments at 20.
127
The same shortcomings are present in the Title II Order�s analysis of caching, as well.
128
Communications Protocols Under Section 64.702 of the Commission�s Rules and Regulations, GN Docket No.
80-756, Memorandum Opinion, Order, and Statement of Principles, 95 FCC 2d 584, 591, para. 15 (1983) (Protocols
Order).
129
See, e.g., North American Telecommunications Association Petition for Declaratory Ruling Under �64.702 of the
Commission�s Rules Regarding the Integration of Centrex, Enhanced Services, and Customer Premises Equipment,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 101 FCC 2d 349, 359, para. 24 (1985) (NATA Centrex Order) (�The computer
processing services we recognized as permissible adjuncts to basic service are services which might indeed fall
within possible literal readings of our definition of an enhanced service, but which are clearly �basic� in purpose and
use.�).
130
See, e.g., Non-Accounting Safeguards Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 21958, para. 107.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-166
20
the functionality otherwise accomplished.
131
Although confronted with claims that DNS is, in significant
part, designed to be useful to end-users rather than providers, the Title II Order nonetheless decided that it
fell within the telecommunications management exception.
132
While conceding that DNS, as well as other
functions like caching, �do provide a benefit to subscribers,�
133
the Title II Order held that they
nonetheless fell within the telecommunications management exception because it found some aspect of
their operation also was of use to providers in managing their networks
that it
fell within the telecommunications management exception.
132
While conceding that DNS, as well as other
functions like caching, �do provide a benefit to subscribers,�
133
the Title II Order held that they
nonetheless fell within the telecommunications management exception because it found some aspect of
their operation also was of use to providers in managing their networks.
134
This expansive view of the
telecommunications management exception�and associated narrowing of the scope of information
services�is a transposition of the analytical approach embodied in the MFJ and Computer Inquiries;
under the approach in the pre-1996 Act precedent, the analysis would instead begin with the broad
language of the information service or enhanced service definitions, generally excluding particular
functions only if the purpose served clearly was narrowly focused on facilitating bare transmission. The
Commission and the courts made clear the narrow scope of the �adjunct-to-basic� or �telecommunications
management� categories in numerous decisions in many different contexts.
135
131
See, e.g., Title II Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 5766-68, paras. 367-68. In addition to the MFJ precedent, Bureau
precedent similarly has observed that adjunct-to-basic capabilities do not include functions �useful to end users,
rather than carriers.� Petitions for Forbearance from the Application of Section 272 of the Communications Act of
1934, As Amended, to Certain Activities, Bell Operating Companies, CC Docket No. 96-149, Memorandum Opinion
and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 2627, 2639, para. 18 (CCB 1998) (272 Forbearance Order). Given the lack of ambiguity in
the MFJ�s holding in this regard, we find it more reasonable to interpret this precedent to call for a similar
requirement that �adjunct to basic� services do not include services primarily useful to end-users, and reject
arguments to the contrary
et No. 96-149, Memorandum Opinion
and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 2627, 2639, para. 18 (CCB 1998) (272 Forbearance Order). Given the lack of ambiguity in
the MFJ�s holding in this regard, we find it more reasonable to interpret this precedent to call for a similar
requirement that �adjunct to basic� services do not include services primarily useful to end-users, and reject
arguments to the contrary. See, e.g., Public Knowledge Reply at 37 (�The �rule� AT&T attempts to extract from this
is simply another paragraph of the telecommunications management exception which, applied to DNS, still does not
lead to the result it wants.�).
132
Title II Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 5768, para. 368 & n.1037. The same is true of the Title II Order�s treatment of
caching. Id. at 5768, para. 368 n.1037.
133
Id.
134
Id.
135
See, e.g., Amendment of Sections 64.702 of the Commission�s Rules and Regulations (Third Computer Inquiry) et
al., CC Docket No. 85-229, Report and Order, 104 FCC 2d 958, 967-68, para. 10 (1986) (Computer III Phase I
Order) (�[d]ata processing, computer memory or storage, and switching techniques can be components of a basic
service if they are used solely to facilitate the movement of information� (emphasis added)); NATA Centrex Order,
101 FCC 2d at 360, para. 26 (speed dialing and call forwarding �serve but one purpose: facilitating establishment of
a transmission path over which a telephone call may be completed� (emphasis added)); id. at 360, para. 26 (directory
assistance that �provides only that information about another subscriber�s telephone number which is necessary to
allow use of the network to place a call to that other subscriber . . . may be offered as an adjunct to basic service�
while �an offering of access to a data base for most other purposes is the offering of an enhanced service� (emphasis
added)); Computer II Final Decision, 77 FCC 2d at 419, para
�provides only that information about another subscriber�s telephone number which is necessary to
allow use of the network to place a call to that other subscriber . . . may be offered as an adjunct to basic service�
while �an offering of access to a data base for most other purposes is the offering of an enhanced service� (emphasis
added)); Computer II Final Decision, 77 FCC 2d at 419, para. 93 (�[a] basic transmission service is one that is
limited to the common carrier offering of transmission capacity for the movement of information�); id. at 420-21,
para. 97 (�[a]n enhanced service is any offering over the telecommunications network which is more than a basic
transmission service�); id. at 421, para. 98 (�computer processing applications such as call forwarding, speed
calling, directory assistance, itemized billing, traffic management studies, voice encryption, etc. . . . are ancillary
services directly related to [the] provision� of basic telephone service �that do not raise questions about the
fundamental communications or data processing nature of a given service� (internal quotation marks omitted)); MFJ
Initial Gateway Decision, 673 F. Supp. at 587 n.275 (rejecting arguments that transmission of information services
fall outside the definition of information services by focusing in the first instance on �the breadth of the information
services definition�); see also DOJ Competitive Impact Statement, 47 Fed. Reg. at 7176 (telecommunications
services may �include related functions� that are �essential to such transmission,� so, for example, where a function
�constitutes an inherent aspect of the technology used in transmission and switching,� it would not result in the
service being classified an information service under the MFJ). Notably, the focus remains on the purpose or use of
the specific function in question and not merely whether the resulting service, as a whole, is useful to end-users
transmission,� so, for example, where a function
�constitutes an inherent aspect of the technology used in transmission and switching,� it would not result in the
service being classified an information service under the MFJ). Notably, the focus remains on the purpose or use of
the specific function in question and not merely whether the resulting service, as a whole, is useful to end-users.
See, e.g., Public Knowledge Reply at 37 (�To maintain, as AT&T does, that something that is �useful� to an end user
(continued�.)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-166
21
39. The Title II Order also put misplaced reliance on Computer Inquiries adjunct-to-basic
precedent from the traditional telephone service context as a comparison when evaluating broadband
Internet access service functionalities.
136
Because broadband Internet access service was not directly
addressed in pre-1996 Act Computer Inquiries and MFJ precedent, analogies to functions that were
classified under that precedent must account for potentially distinguishing characteristics not only in
terms of technical details but also in terms of the regulatory backdrop. The 1996 Act enunciates a policy
for the Internet that distinguishes broadband Internet access from legacy services like traditional
telephone service. The 1996 Act explains that it is federal policy �to preserve the vibrant and competitive
free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by
Federal or State regulation.�
137
The application of potentially ambiguous precedent to broadband Internet
access service should be informed by how well�or how poorly�it advances that deregulatory statutory
policy. We find that our approach to that precedent, which results in an information service classification
of broadband Internet access service, better advances that deregulatory policy than the approach in the
Title II Order, which led to the imposition of utility-style regulation under Title II
s service should be informed by how well�or how poorly�it advances that deregulatory statutory
policy. We find that our approach to that precedent, which results in an information service classification
of broadband Internet access service, better advances that deregulatory policy than the approach in the
Title II Order, which led to the imposition of utility-style regulation under Title II.
40. The regulatory history of traditional telephone service also informs our understanding of
Computer Inquiries precedent, further distinguishing it from broadband Internet access service. Given the
long history of common carriage offering of that service by the time of the Computer Inquiries, it is
understandable that some precedent started with a presumption that the underlying service was a �basic
service.�
138
But similar assumptions would not be warranted in the case of services other than traditional
telephone service for which there was no similar longstanding history of common carriage. Thus, not
only did the Title II Order rely on specific holdings that are at best ambiguous in their analogy to
technical characteristics of broadband Internet access service, but it failed to adequately appreciate key
regulatory distinctions between traditional telephone service and broadband Internet access service.
139
(Continued from previous page)
cannot fall under the management exception is absurd, as the entire purpose of broadband is to be useful to end
users, as is the entire purpose of telephony.�).
136
See, e.g., Title II Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 5768-69, para. 369.
137
47 U.S.C. � 230(b)(2).
138
See, e.g., NATA Centrex Order, 101 FCC 2d at 358, para. 23 (�[W]e did not intend that our definition of
enhanced services should be interpreted as forbidding carriers to use the processing and storage capabilities within
their networks to offer optional tariffed features which facilitate use of traditional telephone service
30 FCC Rcd at 5768-69, para. 369.
137
47 U.S.C. � 230(b)(2).
138
See, e.g., NATA Centrex Order, 101 FCC 2d at 358, para. 23 (�[W]e did not intend that our definition of
enhanced services should be interpreted as forbidding carriers to use the processing and storage capabilities within
their networks to offer optional tariffed features which facilitate use of traditional telephone service. Accordingly,
the Final Decision carried forward from the Tentative Decision our recognition that there are computer processing
services which may be offered in conjunction with basic telephone service.�); Computer II Final Decision, 77 FCC
2d at 421, para. 98 (�The intent was to recognize that while POTS is a basic service, there are ancillary services
directly related to its provision that do not raise questions about the fundamental communications or data processing
nature of a given service. Accordingly, we are not here foreclosing telephone companies from providing to
consumers option

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

## Nearby sections

- [DA-00-1341: A&E Television Networks For Declaratory Ruling (06/20/00) A&E Television Networks For Declaratory Ruling](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_00_1341.md)
- [DA-01-2234: Request for Declaratory Ruling Removing the Commission's Minimum Carrier Tone Requirement for OFDM Modulation in the Multipoint Distribution and Instructional Television Fixed Services (09/26/01) Request for Declaratory Ruling Removing the Commission's Minimum Carrier Tone Requirement for OFDM Modulation in the Multipoint Distribution and Instructional Television Fixed Services](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_01_2234.md)
- [DA-01-2871: Multi-Association Group (MAG) Plan (12/11/01) Multi-Association Group (MAG) Plan](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_01_2871.md)
- [DA-02-765: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS AND ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL TELEVISION STATIONS' EMERGENCY PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OR CLARIFICATION OF BROADCAST CARRIAGE RULES FOR SATELLITE CARRIERS, 47 C.F.R. SECTION 76.66 (04/04/02) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS AND ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL TELEVISION STATIONS' EMERGENCY PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OR CLARIFICATION OF BROADCAST CARRIAGE RULES FOR SATELLITE CARRIERS, 47 C.F.R. SECTION 76.66](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_02_765.md)
- [DA-02-2078: Time-Telepictures Television (08/26/02) Time-Telepictures Television](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_02_2078.md)
- [DA-03-2865: INFINITY BROADCASTING OPERATIONS INC (09/09/03) INFINITY BROADCASTING OPERATIONS INC](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_03_2865.md)
- [DA-03-4108: Comcast Cable Communications, Inc., Petition for Declaratory Ruling Petition for Revocation of Certification Request for Expedited Consideration (01/06/04) Comcast Cable Communications, Inc., Petition for Declaratory Ruling Petition for Revocation of Certification Request for Expedited Consideration](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_03_4108.md)
- [DA-04-970: List of Foreign Telecommunications Carriers that Are Presumed to Possess Market Power in Foreign Telecommunications Markets (04/08/04) List of Foreign Telecommunications Carriers that Are Presumed to Possess Market Power in Foreign Telecommunications Markets](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_04_970.md)
- [DA-04-3201: Amendment of the Commission's Space Station Licensing Rules and Policies (10/06/04) Amendment of the Commission's Space Station Licensing Rules and Policies](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_04_3201.md)
- [DA-04-3576: Thrifty Call, Inc. Petition for Declaratory Ruling Concerning BellSouth Tariff F.C.C. No. 1 (11/12/04) Thrifty Call, Inc. Petition for Declaratory Ruling Concerning BellSouth Tariff F.C.C. No. 1](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_04_3576.md)
- [DA-05-140: Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities (01/26/05) Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_05_140.md)
- [DA-05-148: CLARIFICATION OF RECONSIDERATION PERIOD AND EFFECTIVE DATE FOR TERMINATIONS OF WIRELESS RADIO SERVICE AUTHORIZATIONS (01/21/05) CLARIFICATION OF RECONSIDERATION PERIOD AND EFFECTIVE DATE FOR TERMINATIONS OF WIRELESS RADIO SERVICE AUTHORIZATIONS](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_05_148.md)
- [DA-05-1618: Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (06/09/05) Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_05_1618.md)
- [DA-05-1667: Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (06/15/05) Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_05_1667.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_FCC_17_166. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.