Today, the House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet held a hearing on "The National Broadband Plan: Promoting Broadband Adoption.”

Several members at today's hearing focused on the need for FCC oversight on policies that increase broadband deployment and adoption. Not surprisingly, the FCC’s recently announced proposal to reclassify broadband as a “telecommunications service” was another key point of discussion at the hearing. Unfortunately, when discussing reclassification, some of these lawmakers were just regurgitating industry talking points -– that oppose even the most minimal consumer protections -- rather than examining how this proposal would allow the FCC to establish light oversight of broadband providers and create a framework that puts consumers first.

These members should recognize that unless the FCC reclassifies and restores its regulatory framework back in harmony with Congress' law, the Agency will have no authority to enact the policies needed to meet the Congressional goals of universal, affordable, world-class broadband for all Americans.

Free Press research director S. Derek Turner explained in a speech he gave at our annual policy summit this week why reclassification not only makes sense, but is how Congress intended for broadband –- the key communications medium of our time -- to be treated.

As Free Press has said, in order for the Federal Communications Commission to implement key elements of the National Broadband Plan, they must move forward with their plans to bring the regulatory framework back in harmony with the law.

The FCC’s proposal to modernize the legal framework for broadband policy would simply return the framework that Congress adopted for all two-way communications networks in the 1996 Act, even in the presence of competition. And when paired with the FCC’s proposed forbearance, a tool that allows the FCC to opt out of enforcing some of its regulations, reclassification enables the FCC to carry out the National Broadband Plan while also preserving today’s regulatory status quo.

Some member’s statements today indicate they believe that Title II of the Communications Act is designed for monopoly telephone networks and not IP transport networks. This is simply untrue, both in history and in current practice, as Senator Dorgan explained earlier this week at Free Press’ policy summit.

Parts of Title II were written specifically to apply to the basic telephone services offered by incumbent phone companies, but other parts were meant to apply generally to all two-way communications networks, regardless of technology or marketplace competition. The FCC seeks to forbear from most of the parts of the law written for basic telephone service, and only apply the rules needed to ensure universal service, Internet openness, and consumer privacy.