Supporters of 2015 Net Neutrality Order Expected to Seek Delay of Reply Deadline
With the July 17 deadline for initial comments on the net neutrality NPRM less than three weeks away, supporters of the 2015 rules aren't widely expected to ask for extra time. Instead, they are expected to make a major push for extra time to file replies, now due Aug. 16. It's unclear whether the FCC Republican majority will provide the additional time, given the extensive record. The agency has logged about 5 million comments in 17-108, the docket on the May net neutrality NPRM.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
“I think it’s going to be more on the reply side than the comment side,” said Gigi Sohn, aide to former Chairman Tom Wheeler when the 2015 rules were approved. “You could make the best judgment as to how bad it’s going to be to try to get reply comments done in a month after all [initial] comments are filed.” The FCC didn’t comment.
Other opponents of Chairman Ajit Pai’s push to overturn the rules said giving more time is critical. “We certainly expect to need more time to prepare thoughtful reply comments in a proceeding that may well have more parties and longer comments than any other issue before the FCC in years,” said Michael Calabrese, director of the Wireless Future Program at New America.
“Pai will break the internet if he rushes through the process,” said Jeff Chester, executive director at the Center for Democracy. “There needs to be sufficient time for all sides to carefully review comments and provide a fact-based and thoughtful analysis.”
An extension would cut both ways, also giving proponents of reversing the Obama era rules more time to comment, said Lawrence Spiwak, president of the Phoenix Center. “While the FCC certainly has the ability to extend the deadline to file reply comments, proponents of more time are going to have to present a compelling argument why the FCC should do so,” he said. He expects the number of substantive comments, “as opposed to the millions of clicktivist email comments,” to be on par with other major proceedings. No major holidays fall during the reply period, he noted: “I'm not sure the commission will be inclined to grant an extension.”
The FCC shouldn’t extend the comment deadlines, said Robert McDowell, of Mobile Future and Cooley. "After 13 years of this public policy Ping-Pong match, it's a tall order to say that the record isn't chock-full of just about every conceivable idea or factoid,” McDowell said. “All sides have had plenty of time to ponder their ideas regarding how to keep the internet open and freedom enhancing."
“This issue has consumed more oxygen than it deserves, so it would be good if the FCC moves it along,” said Mark Jamison, University of Florida professor and a member of the Trump FCC transition landing team. “The actual differences between the opponents and proponents of FCC’s current rules, in terms of what ISPs are likely to do, are not as large as one would think given the intensity of the rhetoric.” Few surprises are likely, agreed Free State Foundation President Randolph May: “But it’s fair for anyone to come in and argue that they need a bit more time if they can show good cause for doing so, such as a number of new studies with new information.”
Among recent substantial filings, a group of small ISPs defended the 2015 order, saying they see no need for major change. “We have encountered no new additional barriers to investment or deployment as a result of the 2015 decision to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service and have long supported network neutrality as a core principle for the deployment of networks for the American public to access the Internet,” the ISPs said. The Electronic Frontier Foundation filed the letter.