OFFICE OF

THE CHAIRMAN

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

WASHINGTON

April 20, 2018

The Honorable Barbara LeeU.S. House of Representatives2267 Rayburn House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congresswoman Lee:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, whichreestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network managementpractices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework thatgoverned such practices for almost twenty years.

At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a RepublicanCongress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant andcompetitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or Stateregulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the privatesector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the UnitedStates. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Interneteconomy became the envy of the world.

Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to theInternet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s togovern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. TheInternet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, theInternet had been a stunning success.

Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaintconsumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider isblocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition betweenproviders. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumerpreferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions ofdollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internetera. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobilebroadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order.

Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton'spronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end theInternet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or thefundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes.

Page 2-The Honorable Barbara Lee

By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers andpromoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks,especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This meansthere will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways thatcompanies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it'sa freer and more open Internet.

The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency amongISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, andthe failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure thatconsumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they developnew products and services.

Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure thatconsumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC ofits jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." Butnow we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat.

In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They willstill be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulatorsguarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the waythey will be in the future.

I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be enteredinto the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Ajit V. Pai

OFFICE OF

THE CHAIRMAN

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

WASHINGTON

April 20, 2018

The Honorable Beto O'RourkeU.S. House of Representatives1330 Longworth House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman ORourke:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, whichreestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network managementpractices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework thatgoverned such practices for almost twenty years.

At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a RepublicanCongress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant andcompetitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or Stateregulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the privatesector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the UnitedStates. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Interneteconomy became the envy of the world.

Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to theInternet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 193 Os togovern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. TheInternet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, theInternet had been a stunning success.

Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaintconsumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider isblocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition betweenproviders. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumerpreferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions ofdollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internetera. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobilebroadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order.

Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton'spronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end theInternet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or thefundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes.

Page 2-The Honorable Beto O'Rourke

By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers andpromoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks,especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This meansthere will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways thatcompanies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it'sa freer and more open Internet.

The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency amongISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, andthe failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure thatconsumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they developnew products and services.

Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure thatconsumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC ofits jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." Butnow we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat.

In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They willstill be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulatorsguarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the waythey will be in the future.

I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be enteredinto the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely, ,

A +T Dr-1J1L V . I L1

OFFICE OF

THE CHAIRMAN

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

WASHINGTON

April 20, 2018

The Honorable Betty McCollumU.S. House of Representatives2256 Rayburn House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congresswoman McCollum:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, whichreestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network managementpractices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework thatgoverned such practices for almost twenty years.

At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a RepublicanCongress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant andcompetitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or Stateregulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the privatesector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the UnitedStates. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Interneteconomy became the envy of the world.

Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to theInternet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 193 Os togovern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. TheInternet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, theInternet had been a stunning success.

Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaintconsumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider isblocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition betweenproviders. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumerpreferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions ofdollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internetera. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobilebroadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order.

Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton'spronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end theInternet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or thefundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes.

Page 2-The Honorable Betty McCollum

By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers andpromoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks,especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This meansthere will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways thatcompanies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it'sa freer and more open Internet.

The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency amongISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, andthe failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure thatconsumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they developnew products and services.

Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure thatconsumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC ofits jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." Butnow we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat.

In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They willstill be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulatorsguarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the waythey will be in the future.

I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be enteredinto the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

II

(J

OFFICE OF

THE CHAIRMAN

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

WASHINGTON

April 20, 2018

The Honorable Bonnie Watson ColemanU.S. House of Representatives1535 Longworth House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congresswoman Watson Coleman:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which

reestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network management

practices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework that

governed such practices for almost twenty years.

At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a Republican

Congress agreed that it would be 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." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private

sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the UnitedStates. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Interneteconomy became the envy of the world.

Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to theInternet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1 930s to

govern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The

Internet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the

Internet had been a stunning success.

Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaint

consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is

blocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition between

providers. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer

preferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions of

dollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internet

era. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobile

broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order.

Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton'spronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the

Internet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or thefundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes.

Page 2-The Honorable Bonnie Watson Coleman

By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers andpromoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks,especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 50. This meansthere will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways thatcompanies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it'sa freer and more open Internet.

The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency amongISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, andthe failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure thatconsumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they developnew products and services.

Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure thatconsumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC ofits jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." Butnow we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat.

In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They willstill be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulatorsguarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the waythey will be in the future.

I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be enteredinto the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

A + \I Df)J1L V . I LI

OFFICE OF

THE CHAIRMAN

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

WASHINGTON

April 20, 2018

The Honorable Carolyn B. MaloneyU.S. House of Representatives2308 Rayburn House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congresswoman Maloney:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which

reestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network managementpractices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework thatgoverned such practices for almost twenty years.

At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a RepublicanCongress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant andcompetitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or Stateregulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the privatesector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the UnitedStates. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Interneteconomy became the envy of the world.

Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to theInternet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s togovern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. TheInternet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, theInternet had been a stunning success.

Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaintconsumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider isblocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition betweenproviders. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumerpreferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions ofdollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internetera. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobilebroadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order.

Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton'spronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end theInternet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or thefundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes.

Page 2-The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney

By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers andpromoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks,especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This meansthere will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways thatcompanies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it'sa freer and more open Internet.

The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency amongISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, andthe failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure thatconsumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they developnew products and services.

Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure thatconsumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC ofits jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." Butnow we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat..

In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They willstill be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulatorsguarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the waythey will be in the future.

I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be enteredinto the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

Ajit V. Pai

- cOMMu

(

,

OFFICE OF

THE CHAIRMAN

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

WASHINGTON

April 20, 2018

The Honorable Chellie PingreeU.S. House of Representatives2162 Rayburn House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congresswoman Pingree:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, whichreestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network managementpractices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework thatgoverned such practices for almost twenty years.

At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a RepublicanCongress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant andcompetitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or Stateregulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the privatesector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the UnitedStates. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Interneteconomy became the envy of the world.

Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to theInternet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 193 Os togovern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. TheInternet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, theInternet had been a stunning success.

Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaintconsumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider isblocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition betweenproviders. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumerpreferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions ofdollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internetera. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobilebroadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order.

Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton'spronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end theInternet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or thefundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes.

Page 2-The Honorable Chellie Pingree

By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers andpromoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks,especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This meansthere will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways thatcompanies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it'sa freer and more open Internet.

The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency amongISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, andthe failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure thatconsumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they developnew products and services.

Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure thatconsumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC ofits jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." Butnow we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat.

In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They willstill be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulatorsguarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the waythey will be in the future.

I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be enteredinto the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

OFFICE OF

THE CHAIRMAN

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

WASHINGTON

April 20, 2018

The Honorable Don BeyerU.S. House of Representatives1119 Longworth House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Beyer:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, whichreestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network managementpractices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework thatgoverned such practices for almost twenty years.

At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a RepublicanCongress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant andcompetitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or Stateregulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the privatesector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the UnitedStates. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Interneteconomy became the envy of the world.

Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to theInternet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 193 Os togovern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. TheInternet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, theInternet had been a stunning success.

Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaintconsumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider isblocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition betweenproviders. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumerpreferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions ofdollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internetera. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobilebroadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order.

Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton'spronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end theInternet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or thefundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes.

Page 2-The Honorable Don Beyer

By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers andpromoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks,especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This meansthere will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways thatcompanies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it'sa freer and more open Internet.

The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency amongISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, andthe failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure thatconsumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they developnew products and services.

Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure thatconsumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC ofits jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." Butnow we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat.

In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They willstill be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulatorsguarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the waythey will be in the future.

I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be enteredinto the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

Ajit V. Pai

OFFICE OF

THE CHAIRMAN

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

WASHINGTON

April 20, 2018

The Honorable Earl BlumenauerU.S. House of Representatives1111 Longworth House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Blumenauer:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, whichreestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network managementpractices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework thatgoverned such practices for almost twenty years.

At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a RepublicanCongress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant andcompetitive free market that presently exists for the Internet . . . unfettered by Federal or Stateregulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the privatesector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the UnitedStates. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Interneteconomy became the envy of the world.

Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to theInternet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s togovern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. TheInternet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, theInternet had been a stunning success.

Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaintconsumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider isblocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition betweenproviders. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumerpreferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions ofdollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internetera. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobilebroadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order.

Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton'spronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end theInternet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or thefundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes.

Page 2-The Honorable Earl Blumenauer

By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers andpromoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks,especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This meansthere will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways thatcompanies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it'sa freer and more open Internet.

The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency amongISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, andthe failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure thatconsumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they developnew products and services.

Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure thatconsumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC ofits jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." Butnow we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat.

In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They willstill be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulatorsguarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the waythey will be in the future.

I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be enteredinto the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,11

Ajit V. Pai

OFFICE OF

THE CHAIRMAN

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

WASHINGTON

April 20, 2018

The Honorable Grace F. NapolitanoU.S. House of Representatives1610 Longworth House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congresswoman Napolitano:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, whichreestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network managementpractices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework thatgoverned such practices for almost twenty years.

At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a RepublicanCongress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant andcompetitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or Stateregulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the privatesector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the UnitedStates. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Interneteconomy became the envy of the world.

Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to theInternet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s togovern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. TheInternet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, theInternet had been a stunning success.

Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaintconsumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider isblocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition betweenproviders. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumerpreferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions ofdollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internetera. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobilebroadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order.

Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton'spronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end theInternet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or thefundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes.

Page 2-The Honorable Grace F. Napolitano

By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers andpromoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks,especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This meansthere will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways thatcompanies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it'sa freer and more open Internet.

The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency amongISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, andthe failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure thatconsumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they developnew products and services.

Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure thatconsumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC ofits jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." Butnow we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat.

In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They willstill be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulatorsguarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the waythey will be in the future.

I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be enteredinto the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

(jAjitV.Pai

OFFICE OF

THE CHAIRMAN

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

WASHINGTON

April 20, 2018

The Honorable Jamie RaskinU.S. House of Representatives431 Cannon House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congresswoman Raskin:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, whichreestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network managementpractices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework thatgoverned such practices for almost twenty years.

At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a RepublicanCongress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant andcompetitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or Stateregulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the privatesector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the UnitedStates. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Interneteconomy became the envy of the world.

Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to theInternet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1 930s togovern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. TheInternet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, theInternet had been a stunning success.

Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaintconsumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider isblocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition betweenproviders. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumerpreferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions ofdollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internetera. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobilebroadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order.

Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton'spronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end theInternet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or thefundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes.

Page 2-The Honorable Jamie Raskin

By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers andpromoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks,especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This meansthere will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways thatcompanies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it'sa freer and more open Internet.

The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency amongISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, andthe failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure thatconsumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they developnew products and services.

Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure thatconsumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC ofits jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." Butnow we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat.

In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They willstill be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulatorsguarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the waythey will be in the future.

I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be enteredinto the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,('I

OFFICE OF

THE CHAIRMAN

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

WASHINGTON

April 20, 2018

The Honorable Jan SchakowskyU.S. House of Representatives2367 Rayburn House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congresswoman Schakowsky:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, whichreestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network managementpractices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework thatgoverned such practices for almost twenty years.

At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a RepublicanCongress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant andcompetitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfeftered by Federal or Stateregulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the privatesector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the UnitedStates. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Interneteconomy became the envy of the world.

Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to theInternet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1 930s togovern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. TheInternet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, theInternet had been a stunning success.

Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaintconsumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider isblocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition betweenproviders. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumerpreferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions ofdollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internetera. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobilebroadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order.

Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton'spronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end theInternet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or thefundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes.

Page 2-The Honorable Jan Schakowsky

By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers andpromoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks,especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This meansthere will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways thatcompanies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it'sa freer and more open Internet.

The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency amongISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, andthe failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure thatconsumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they developnew products and services.

Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure thatconsumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC ofits jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." Butnow we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat.

In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They willstill be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulatorsguarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the waythey will be in the future.

I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be enteredinto the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

OFFICE OF

THE CHAIRMAN

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

WASHINGTON

April 20, 2018

The Honorable Jared HuffmanU.S. House of Representatives1406 Longworth House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Huffman:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, whichreestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network managementpractices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework thatgoverned such practices for almost twenty years.

At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a RepublicanCongress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant andcompetitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or Stateregulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the privatesector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the UnitedStates. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Interneteconomy became the envy of the world.

Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to theInternet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s togovern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. TheInternet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, theInternet had been a stunning success.

Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaintconsumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider isblocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition betweenproviders. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumerpreferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions ofdollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internetera. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobilebroadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order.

Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton'spronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end theInternet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or thefundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes.

Page 2-The Honorable Jared Huffman

By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers andpromoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks,especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This meansthere will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways thatcompanies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it'sa freer and more open Internet.

The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency amongISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, andthe failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure thatconsumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they developnew products and services.

Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure thatconsumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC ofits jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." Butnow we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat.

In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They willstill be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulatorsguarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the waythey will be in the future.

I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be enteredinto the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any ftirther assistance.

Sincerely,

(\

AjitV.Pai

OFFICE OF

THE CHAIRMAN

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

WASHINGTON

April 20, 2018

The Honorable Jared PolisU.S. House of Representatives1727 Longworth House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Polis:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, whichreestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network managementpractices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework thatgoverned such practices for almost twenty years.

At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a RepublicanCongress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant andcompetitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or Stateregulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the privatesector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the UnitedStates. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Interneteconomy became the envy of the world.

Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to theInternet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s togovern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. TheInternet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, theInternet had been a stunning success.

Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaintconsumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider isblocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition betweenproviders. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumerpreferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions ofdollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internetera. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobilebroadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order.

Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton'spronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end theInternet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or thefundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes.

Page 2-The Honorable Jared Polis

By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers andpromoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks,especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This meansthere will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways thatcompanies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it'sa freer and more open Internet.

The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency amongISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, andthe failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure thatconsumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they developnew products and services.

Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure thatconsumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC ofits jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." Butnow we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat.

In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They willstill be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulatorsguarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the waythey will be in the future.

I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be enteredinto the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

OFFICE OF

THE CHAIRMAN

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

WASHINGTON

April 20, 2018

The Honorable Jim McGovernU.S. House of Representatives438 Cannon House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman McGovern:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, whichreestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network managementpractices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework thatgoverned such practices for almost twenty years.

At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a RepublicanCongress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant andcompetitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or Stateregulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the privatesector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the UnitedStates. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Interneteconomy became the envy of the world.

Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to theInternet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 193 Os togovern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. TheInternet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, theInternet had been a stunning success.

Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaintconsumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider isblocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition betweenproviders. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumerpreferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions ofdollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internetera. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobilebroadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order.

Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton'spronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end theInternet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or thefundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes.

Page 2-The Honorable Jim McGovern

By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers andpromoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks,especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This meansthere will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways thatcompanies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it'sa freer and more open Internet.

The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency amongISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, andthe failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure thatconsumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they developnew products and services.

Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure thatconsumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC ofits jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." Butnow we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat.

In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They willstill be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulatorsguarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the waythey will be in the future.

I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be enteredinto the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

Ajit V. Pai

OFFICE OF

THE CHAIRMAN

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

WASHINGTON

April 20, 2018

The Honorable Jose B. SerranoU.S. House of Representatives2354 Rayburn House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Serrano:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, whichreestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network managementpractices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework thatgoverned such practices for almost twenty years.

At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a RepublicanCongress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant andcompetitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or Stateregulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the privatesector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the UnitedStates. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Interneteconomy became the envy of the world.

Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to theInternet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s togovern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. TheInternet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, theInternet had been a stunning success.

Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaintconsumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider isblocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition betweenproviders. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumerpreferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions ofdollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internetera. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobilebroadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order.

Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton'spronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end theInternet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or thefundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes.

Page 2-The Honorable Jose B. Serrano

By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers andpromoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks,especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This meansthere will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways thatcompanies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it'sa freer and more open Internet.

The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency amongISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, andthe failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure thatconsumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they developnew products and services.

Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure thatconsumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC ofits jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." Butnow we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat.

In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They willstill be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulatorsguarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the waythey will be in the future.

I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be enteredinto the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

I-'

lot",

OFFICE OF

THE CHAIRMAN

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

WASHINGTON

April 20, 2018

The Honorable Katherine M. ClarkU.S. House of Representatives1415 Longworth House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congresswoman Clark:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, whichreestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network managementpractices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework thatgoverned such practices for almost twenty years.

At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a RepublicanCongress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant andcompetitive free market that presently exists for the Internet . . . unfettered by Federal or Stateregulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the privatesector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the UnitedStates. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Interneteconomy became the envy of the world.

Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to theInternet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s togovern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. TheInternet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, theInternet had been a stunning success.

Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaintconsumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider isblocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition betweenproviders. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumerpreferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions ofdollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internetera. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobilebroadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order.

Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton'spronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end theInternet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or thefundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes.

Page 2-The Honorable Katherine M. Clark

By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers andpromoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks,especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 50. This meansthere will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways thatcompanies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it'sa freer and more open Internet.

The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency amongISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, andthe failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure thatconsumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they developnew products and services.

Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure thatconsumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC ofits jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." Butnow we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat.

In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They willstill be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulatorsguarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the waythey will be in the future.

I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be enteredinto the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

(JAjit V. Pai

OFFICE OF

THE CHAIRMAN

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

WASHINGTON

April 20, 2018

The Honorable Keith EllisonU.S. House of Representatives2263 Rayburn House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Ellison:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, whichreestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network managementpractices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework thatgoverned such practices for almost twenty years.

At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a RepublicanCongress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant andcompetitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or Stateregulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the privatesector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the UnitedStates. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Interneteconomy became the envy of the world.

Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to theInternet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s togovern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. TheInternet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, theInternet had been a stunning success.

Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaintconsumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider isblocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition betweenproviders. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumerpreferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions ofdollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internetera. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobilebroadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order.

Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton'spronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end theInternet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or thefundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes.

Page 2-The Honorable Keith Ellison

By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers andpromoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks,especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This meansthere will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways thatcompanies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it'sa freer and more open Internet.

The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency amongISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, andthe failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure thatconsumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they developnew products and services.

Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure thatconsumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC ofits jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." Butnow we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat.

In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They willstill be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulatorsguarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the waythey will be in the future.

I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be enteredinto the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

Ajit V. Pai

OFFICE OF

THE CHAIRMAN

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

WASHINGTON

April 20, 2018

The Honorable Lloyd DoggettU.S. House of Representatives2307 Rayburn House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Doggett:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, whichreestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network managementpractices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework thatgoverned such practices for almost twenty years.

At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a RepublicanCongress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant andcompetitive free market that presently exists for the Internet . . . unfettered by Federal or Stateregulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the privatesector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the UnitedStates. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Interneteconomy became the envy of the world.

Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to theInternet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s togovern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. TheInternet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, theInternet had been a stunning success.

Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaintconsumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider isblocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition betweenproviders. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumerpreferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions ofdollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internetera. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobilebroadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order.

Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton'spronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end theInternet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or thefundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes.

Page 2-The Honorable Lloyd Doggett

By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers andpromoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks,especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This meansthere will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways thatcompanies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it'sa freer and more open Internet.

The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency amongISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, andthe failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure thatconsumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they developnew products and services.

Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure thatconsumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC ofits jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." Butnow we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat.

In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They willstill be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulatorsguarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the waythey will be in the future.

I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be enteredinto the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

ViVaAJAjit V. Pai

OFFICE OF

THE CHAIRMAN

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

WASHINGTON

April 20, 2018

The Honorable Madeleine Z. BordalloU.S. House of Representatives2441 Rayburn House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congresswoman Bordallo:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, whichreestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network managementpractices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework thatgoverned such practices for almost twenty years.

At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a RepublicanCongress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant andcompetitive free market that presently exists for the Internet.. . unfettered by Federal or Stateregulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the privatesector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the UnitedStates. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Interneteconomy became the envy of the world.

Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to theInternet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s togovern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. TheInternet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, theInternet had been a stunning success.

Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaintconsumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider isblocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition betweenproviders. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumerpreferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions ofdollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internetera. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobilebroadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order.

Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton'spronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end theInternet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or thefundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes.

Page 2-The Honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo

By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers andpromoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks,especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This meansthere will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways thatcompanies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it'sa freer and more open Internet.

The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency amongISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, andthe failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure thatconsumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they developnew products and services.

Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure thatconsumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC ofits jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." Butnow we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat.

In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They willstill be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulatorsguarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the waythey will be in the future.

I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be enteredinto the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

VAjit V. Pai

OFFICE OF

THE CHAIRMAN

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

WASHINGTON

April 20, 2018

The Honorable Mark PocanU.S. House of Representatives1421 Longworth House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Pocan:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, whichreestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network managementpractices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework thatgoverned such practices for almost twenty years.

At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a RepublicanCongress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant andcompetitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or Stateregulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the privatesector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the UnitedStates. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Interneteconomy became the envy of the world.

Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to theInternet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s togovern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. TheInternet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, theInternet had been a stunning success.

Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaintconsumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider isblocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition betweenproviders. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumerpreferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions ofdollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internetera. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobilebroadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order.

Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton'spronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end theInternet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or thefundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes.

Page 2-The Honorable Mark Pocan

By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers andpromoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks,especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This meansthere will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways thatcompanies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it'sa freer and more open Internet.

The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency amongISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, andthe failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure thatconsumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they developnew products and services.

Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure thatconsumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC ofits jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." Butnow we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat.

In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They willstill be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulatorsguarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the waythey will be in the future.

I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be enteredinto the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

OFFICE OF

THE CHAIRMAN

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

WASHINGTON

April 20, 2018

The Honorable Mark TakanoU.S. House of Representatives1507 Longworth House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Takano:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, whichreestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network managementpractices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework thatgoverned such practices for almost twenty years.

At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a RepublicanCongress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant andcompetitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or Stateregulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the privatesector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the UnitedStates. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Interneteconomy became the envy of the world.

Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to theInternet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 193 Os togovern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. TheInternet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, theInternet had been a stunning success.

Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaintconsumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider isblocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition betweenproviders. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumerpreferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions ofdollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internetera. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobilebroadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order.

Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton'spronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end theInternet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or thefundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes.

Page 2-The Honorable Mark Takano

By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers andpromoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks,especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This meansthere will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways thatcompanies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it'sa freer and more open Internet.

The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency amongISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, andthe failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure thatconsumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they developnew products and services.

Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure thatconsumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC ofits jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." Butnow we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat.

In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They willstill be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulatorsguarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the waythey will be in the future.

I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be enteredinto the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

Ajit V. Pai

OFFICE OF

THE CHAIRMAN

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

WASHINGTON

April 20, 2018

The Honorable Michael E. CapuanoU.S. House of Representatives1414 Longworth House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Capuano:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, whichreestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network managementpractices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework thatgoverned such practices for almost twenty years.

At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a RepublicanCongress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant andcompetitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or Stateregulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the privatesector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the UnitedStates. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Interneteconomy became the envy of the world.

Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to theInternet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 193 Os togovern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. TheInternet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, theInternet had been a stunning success.

Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaintconsumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider isblocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition betweenproviders. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumerpreferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions ofdollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internetera. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobilebroadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order.

Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton'spronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end theInternet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or thefundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes.

Page 2-The Honorable Michael E. Capuano

By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers andpromoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks,especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This meansthere will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways thatcompanies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it'sa freer and more open Internet.

The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency amongISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, andthe failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure thatconsumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they developnew products and services.

Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure thatconsumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC ofits jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." Butnow we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat.

In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They willstill be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulatorsguarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the waythey will be in the future.

I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be enteredinto the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,1

1hAjitV.Pai

OFFICE OF

THE CHAIRMAN

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

WASHINGTON

April 20, 2018

The Honorable Michelle Lujan GrishamU.S. House of Representatives214 Cannon House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congresswoman Lujan Grisham:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, whichreestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network managementpractices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework thatgoverned such practices for almost twenty years.

At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a RepublicanCongress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant andcompetitive free market that presently exists for the Internet.. . unfettered by Federal or Stateregulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the privatesector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the UnitedStates. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Interneteconomy became the envy of the world.

Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to theInternet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s togovern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. TheInternet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, theInternet had been a stunning success.

Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaintconsumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider isblocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition betweenproviders. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumerpreferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions ofdollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internetera. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobilebroadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order.

Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton'spronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the

Internet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or thefundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes.

Page 2-The Honorable Michelle Lujan Grisham

By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers andpromoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks,especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This meansthere will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways thatcompanies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it'sa freer and more open Internet.

The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency amongISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, andthe failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure thatconsumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they developnew products and services.

Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure thatconsumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC ofits jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." Butnow we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat.

In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They willstill be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulatorsguarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the waythey will be in the future.

I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be enteredinto the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

vi?Ajit V. Pai

OFFICE OF

THE CHAIRMAN

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONWASHINGTON

April 20, 2018

The Honorable Peter A. DeFazioU.S. House of Representatives2134 Rayburn House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman DeFazio:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, whichreestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network managementpractices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework thatgoverned such practices for almost twenty years.

At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a RepublicanCongress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant andcompetitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or Stateregulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the privatesector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the UnitedStates. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Interneteconomy became the envy of the world.

Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to theInternet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1 930s togovern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. TheInternet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, theInternet had been a stunning success.

Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaintconsumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider isblocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition betweenproviders. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumerpreferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions ofdollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internetera. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobilebroadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order.

Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton'spronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end theInternet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or thefundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes.

Page 2-The Honorable Peter A. DeFazio

By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers andpromoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks,especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This meansthere will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways thatcompanies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it'sa freer and more open Internet.

The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency amongISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, andthe failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure thatconsumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they developnew products and services.

Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure thatconsumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC ofits jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." Butnow we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat.

In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They willstill be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulatorsguarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the waythey will be in the future.

I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be enteredinto the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

Ajit V. Pai

OFFICE OF

THE CHAIRMAN

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

WASHINGTON

April 20, 2018

The Honorable Pramila JayapalU.S. House of Representatives319 Cannon House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congresswoman Jayapal:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, whichreestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network managementpractices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework thatgoverned such practices for almost twenty years.

At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a RepublicanCongress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant andcompetitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or Stateregulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the privatesector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the UnitedStates. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Interneteconomy became the envy of the world.

Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to theInternet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s togovern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. TheInternet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, theInternet had been a stunning success.

Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaintconsumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider isblocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition betweenproviders. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumerpreferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions ofdollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internetera. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobilebroadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order.

Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton'spronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end theInternet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or thefundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes.

Page 2-The Honorable Pramila Jayapal

By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers andpromoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks,especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This meansthere will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways thatcompanies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it'sa freer and more open Internet.

The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency amongISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, andthe failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure thatconsumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they developnew products and services.

Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure thatconsumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC ofits jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." Butnow we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat.

In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They willstill be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulatorsguarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the waythey will be in the future.

I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be enteredinto the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS CoMMissioN

WASHINGTON

OFFICE OF

THE CHAIRMAN April 20, 2018

The Honorable Raül M. GrijalvaU.S. House of Representatives1511 Longworth House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Grijalva:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, whichreestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network managementpractices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework thatgoverned such practices for almost twenty years.

At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a RepublicanCongress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant andcompetitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or Stateregulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the privatesector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the UnitedStates. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Interneteconomy became the envy of the world.

Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to theInternet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1 930s togovern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. TheInternet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, theInternet had been a stunning success.

Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaintconsumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider isblocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition betweenproviders. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumerpreferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions ofdollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internetera. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobilebroadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order.

Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton'spronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end theInternet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or thefundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes.

Page 2-The Honorable Raül M. Grijalva

By returning to the light4ouch Title I framework, we are helping consumers andpromoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks,especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This meansthere will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways thatcompanies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it'sa freer and more open Internet.

The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency amongISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, andthe failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure thatconsumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they developnew products and services.

Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure thatconsumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC ofits jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." Butnow we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat.

In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They willstill be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulatorsguarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the waythey will be in the future.

I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be enteredinto the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

1)Sincerely,

Ajit V. Pai

OFFICE OF

THE CHAIRMAN

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

WASHINGTON

April 20, 2018

The Honorable Rick NolanU.S. House of Representatives2366 Rayburn House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Nolan:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, whichreestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network managementpractices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework thatgoverned such practices for almost twenty years.

At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a RepublicanCongress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant andcompetitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or Stateregulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the privatesector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the UnitedStates. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Interneteconomy became the envy of the world.

Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to theInternet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the l930s togovern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. TheInternet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, theInternet had been a stunning success.

Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaintconsumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider isblocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition betweenproviders. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumerpreferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions ofdollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internetera. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobilebroadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order.

Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton'spronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end theInternet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or thefundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes.

Page 2-The Honorable Rick Nolan

By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers andpromoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks,especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This meansthere will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways thatcompanies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it'sa freer and more open Internet.

The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency amongISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, andthe failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure thatconsumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they developnew products and services.

Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure thatconsumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC ofits jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." Butnow we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat.

In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They willstill be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulatorsguarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the waythey will be in the future.

I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be enteredinto the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

L\JIL V • I ai

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

WASHINGTON

OFFICE OF

THE CHAIRMAN April 20, 2018

The Honorable Robert C. ScottU.S. House of Representatives1201 Longworth House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Scott:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, whichreestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network managementpractices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework thatgoverned such practices for almost twenty years.

At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a RepublicanCongress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant andcompetitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or Stateregulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the privatesector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the UnitedStates. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Interneteconomy became the envy of the world.

Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to theInternet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 193 Os togovern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. TheInternet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, theInternet had been a stunning success.

Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaintconsumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider isblocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition betweenproviders. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumerpreferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions ofdollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internetera. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobilebroadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order.

Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton'spronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end theInternet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or thefundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes.

Page 2-The Honorable Robert C. Scott

By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers andpromoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks,especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This meansthere will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways thatcompanies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it'sa freer and more open Internet.

The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency amongISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, andthe failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure thatconsumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they developnew products and services.

Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure thatconsumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC ofits jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." Butnow we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat.

In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They willstill be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulatorsguarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the waythey will be in the future.

I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be enteredinto the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

Ajit V. Pai

OFFICE OF

THE CHAIRMAN

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

WASHINGTON

April 20, 2018

The Honorable Rohit KhannaU.S. House of Representatives513 Cannon House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Khanna:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, whichreestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network managementpractices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework thatgoverned such practices for almost twenty years.

At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a RepublicanCongress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant andcompetitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or Stateregulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the privatesector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the UnitedStates. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Interneteconomy became the envy of the world.

Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to theInternet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s togovern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. TheInternet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, theInternet had been a stunning success.

Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaintconsumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider isblocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition betweenproviders. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumerpreferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions ofdollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internetera. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobilebroadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order.

Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton'spronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end theInternet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or thefundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes.

Page 2-The Honorable Rohit Khanna

By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers andpromoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks,especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This meansthere will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways thatcompanies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it'sa freer and more open Internet.

The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency amongISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, andthe failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure thatconsumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they developnew products and services.

Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure thatconsumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC ofits jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." Butnow we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat.

In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They willstill be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulatorsguarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the waythey will be in the future.

I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be enteredinto the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,il

VVAAjit V. Pai

OFFICE OF

THE CHAIRMAN

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

WASHINGTON

April 20, 2018

The Honorable Rosa DeLauroU.S. House of Representatives2413 Rayburn House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congresswoman DeLauro:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, whichreestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network managementpractices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework thatgoverned such practices for almost twenty years.

At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a RepublicanCongress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant andcompetitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or Stateregulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the privatesector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the UnitedStates. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Interneteconomy became the envy of the world.

Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to theInternet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s togovern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. TheInternet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, theInternet had been a stunning success.

Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaintconsumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider isblocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition betweenproviders. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumerpreferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions ofdollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internetera. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobilebroadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order.

Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton'spronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end theInternet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or thefundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes.

Page 2-The Honorable Rosa DeLauro

By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers andpromoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks,especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This meansthere will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways thatcompanies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it'sa freer and more open Internet.

The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency amongISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, andthe failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure thatconsumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they developnew products and services.

Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure thatconsumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC ofits jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." Butnow we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat.

In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They willstill be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulatorsguarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the waythey will be in the future.

I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be enteredinto the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

OFFICE OF

THE CHAIRMAN

FEDERAL COMMUNICAT1ONS COMMISSION

WASHINGTON

April 20, 2018

The Honorable Steve CohenU.S. House of Representatives2404 Rayburn House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Cohen:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, whichreestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network managementpractices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework thatgoverned such practices for almost twenty years.

At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a RepublicanCongress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant andcompetitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or Stateregulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the privatesector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the UnitedStates. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Interneteconomy became the envy of the world.

Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to theInternet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s togovern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. TheInternet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, theInternet had been a stunning success.

Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaintconsumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider isblocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition betweenproviders. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumerpreferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions ofdollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internetera. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobilebroadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order.

Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton'spronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end theInternet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or thefundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes.

Page 2-The Honorable Steve Cohen

By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers andpromoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks,especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This meansthere will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways thatcompanies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it'sa freer and more open Internet.

The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency amongISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, andthe failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure thatconsumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they developnew products and services.

Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure thatconsumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC ofits jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." Butnow we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat.

In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They willstill be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulatorsguarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the waythey will be in the future.

I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be enteredinto the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,I-'

OFFICE OF

THE CHAIRMAN

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

WASHINGTON

April 20, 2018

The Honorable Suzanne BonamiciU.S. House of Representatives439 Cannon House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congresswoman Bonamici:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, whichreestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network managementpractices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework thatgoverned such practices for almost twenty years.

At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a RepublicanCongress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant andcompetitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or Stateregulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the privatesector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the UnitedStates. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Interneteconomy became the envy of the world.

Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to theInternet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s togovern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. TheInternet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, theInternet had been a stunning success.

Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaintconsumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider isblocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition betweenproviders. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumerpreferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions ofdollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internetera. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobilebroadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order.

Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton'spronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end theInternet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or thefundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes.

Page 2-The Honorable Suzanne Bonamici

By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers andpromoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks,especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This meansthere will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways thatcompanies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it'sa freer and more open Internet.

The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency amongISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, andthe failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure thatconsumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they developnew products and services.

Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure thatconsumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC ofits jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." Butnow we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat.

In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They willstill be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulatorsguarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the waythey will be in the future.

I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be enteredinto the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

OFFICE OF

THE CHAIRMAN

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

WASHINGTON

April 20, 2018

The Honorable Tulsi GabbardU.S. House of Representatives1433 Longworth House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congresswoman Gabbard:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, whichreestablished the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the network managementpractices of Internet service providers while returning to the light-touch legal framework thatgoverned such practices for almost twenty years.

At the dawn of the commercial Internet in 1996, President Clinton and a RepublicanCongress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant andcompetitive free market that presently exists for the Internet. . . unfettered by Federal or Stateregulation." This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the privatesector invested over $1.5 trillion to build fixed and mobile networks throughout the UnitedStates. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America's Interneteconomy became the envy of the world.

Then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to theInternet and decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s togovern Ma Bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. TheInternet wasn't broken in 2015. We weren't living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, theInternet had been a stunning success.

Not only was there no problem, this "solution" hasn't worked. The main complaintconsumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider isblocking access to content. It's that they don't have access at all or enough competition betweenproviders. The 2015 regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumerpreferences. Under Title II, annual investment in high-speed networks declined by billions ofdollars-the first time that such investment has gone down outside of a recession in the Internetera. And our recent Broadband Deployment Report shows that the pace of both fixed and mobilebroadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the Title II Order.

Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton'spronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end theInternet as we know it. It is not going to undermine the free exchange of ideas or thefundamental truth that the Internet is the greatest free market success story of our lifetimes.

Page 2-The Honorable Tulsi Gabbard

By returning to the light-touch Title I framework, we are helping consumers andpromoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks,especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabit speeds and 5G. This meansthere will be more competition among broadband providers. It also means more ways thatcompanies of all kinds and sizes can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it'sa freer and more open Internet.

The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also promotes more robust transparency amongISPs than existed three years ago. It requires ISPs to disclose a variety of business practices, andthe failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure thatconsumers know what they're buying and that startups get information they need as they developnew products and services.

Moreover, we reestablish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ensure thatconsumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC ofits jurisdiction over broadband providers by deeming them all Title II "common carriers." Butnow we are putting our nation's premier consumer protection cop back on the beat.

In sum, Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They willstill be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be regulation and regulatorsguarding a free and open Internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the waythey will be in the future.

I appreciate your interest in this matter. Your views are important and will be enteredinto the record of the proceeding. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,i1

Ajit V. Paitic'