Federal Communications Commission Policy Statement Adopted Aug. 5, 2005Released: Sept. 25, 2005

II.4. The Communications Act regulates telecommunications carriers, as common carriers, under Title II. Information service providers, “by contrast, are not subject to mandatory common-carrier regulation under Title II.”* *NCTA v. Brand X

II.4. (continued) The Commission, however, “has jurisdiction to impose additional regulatory obligations under its Title I ancillary jurisdiction to regulate interstate and foreign communications.”* *NCTA v. Brand X

II.4. (continued) As a result, the Commission has jurisdiction necessary to ensure that providers of telecommunications for Internet access or Internet Protocol- enabled (IP-enabled) services are operated in a neutral manner.

II.4. [principle 1] To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice;

II.4. [principle 2] To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement;

II.4. [principle 3] To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and

II.4. [principle 4] To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

COMCAST CORPORATION, PETITIONER v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENTS NBC UNIVERSAL, ET AL., INTERVENORS UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 600 F.3d 642; 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 7039; 49 Comm. Reg. (P & F) 1226 January 8, 2010, Argued April 6, 2010, Decided

COMCAST v. FCC JUDGES: Before: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, TATEL, Circuit Judge, and RANDOLPH, Senior Circuit Judge. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge TATEL. In this case we must decide whether the Federal Communications Commission has authority to regulate an Internet service provider's network management practices....

COMCAST v. FCC... under Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit case law statements of policy, by themselves, do not create "statutorily mandated responsibilities." The Commission also relies on various provisions of the Communications Act that do create such responsibilities, but for a variety of substantive and procedural reasons those provisions cannot support its exercise of ancillary authority over Comcast's network management practices. We therefore grant Comcast's petition for review and vacate the challenged order.