Whereas, broadband internet access service is inherently an interstate service.

Whereas, there has been a long-standing, bipartisan consensus that broadband internet access service should be free of unnecessary regulation.

Whereas, in the wake of the FCC’s 2015 Title II reclassification order, broadband providers’ capital investment declined.¹

Whereas, after the FCC’s 2018 Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which removed Title II burdens, broadband providers’ capital investment increased. In 2022, the broadband industry invested a record $102.4 billion in U.S. communications infrastructure, which represents a 21-year high for investment and a 19% year-over-year increase, according to industry data.

Whereas, the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the importance of broadband internet access service to all segments of society, namely the productive, commercial, educational, health, civic and other social benefits.

Whereas, since 2017, median fixed download speeds in the U.S. have increased by more than five-fold or approximately 430%, according to Ookla data.

Whereas, since the beginning of 2018, the prices for Internet services in real terms have dropped by about 9%, according to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index data.

Whereas, over the past 8 years, real prices are down 54% for the most popular broadband speed tiers, and prices are down 55% for the fastest broadband speed tiers, according to BLS and industry data.

Whereas, in the four years following the 2017 Title II repeal, the percentage of Americans with access to two or more high-speed, fixed ISPs increased by about 30%—up from 229 million to approximately 295 million, according to the FCC.

Whereas, in 2022, broadband builders laid over 400,000 route miles of fiber, a more than 50% increase over 2016 numbers. In 2023, fiber was stretched to 9 million new U.S. households, setting a new all-time record for FTTH deployments in a single year, according to industry data.

Whereas, since 2020, the federal government has made over $160 billion in funding available for broadband, in many instances for states to make funding decisions.

Whereas, broadband internet access service is currently subject to the most comprehensive federal regime since its inception. Internet service providers, among other regulations, are subject to Federal Trade Commission enforcement of federal consumer protection laws and to federal anti-discrimination rules adopted by the Federal Communications Commission; are required to report the availability of their service on a house-by-house basis every six months (something no other business in America does), to display a “nutrition label” at every point of sale, including online, and to report network outages, operational status, and restoration information to the FCC; are within industry sectors for which DHS, DOJ, Commerce, and Treasury are empowered to protect national security; directly subject to several law enforcement statutes administered by DOJ and the FBI; and within the comprehensive cybersecurity regime led by DHS’s Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency. Moreover, when ISPs accept government funding to deploy broadband networks in rural, high-cost areas, like USF or BEAD, they are subject to a wide variety of federal requirements.

Therefore, be it resolved:

• Protect Market Competition – States should be careful not to impose regulations or obligations on only one segment of a competitive industry, thereby burdening its ability to compete freely against other segments.
• Pricing Freedom – Competition is driving down prices, boosting innovation, and improving service. States should also resist calls to pass new laws that would regulate the pricing, the quality of service, or the technology that service providers can use to manage Internet traffic as it crosses their networks.
• Technology Neutrality – Consumers should be empowered to choose the technology to deliver the service without preference from policymakers for a particular technology or how the provider is organized, such as for-profit, non-profit, or government-owned.  Governments offering broadband service to consumers is particularly pernicious because it is inherently inequitable and often leaves taxpayers footing the bill for failed ventures.
• Level Playing Field – Policymakers have made great strides in updating laws to eliminate barriers to providing the best products at the best prices to the most consumers. Ensure providers have timely and equal access to utility poles, ducts and conduits, and rights-of-way based on fair rates, terms and conditions that treat all providers alike.  Moreover, state and local governments should treat all communications providers equally when providers are forced to relocate communications facilities for road or rights-of-way improvements.
• Utility Poles – In order to realize the full potential of broadband service in all areas, states must adopt policies that promote efficient pole attachments and put into place an efficient and equitable cost sharing arrangement between broadband attachers and municipal and cooperative utility pole owners for the costs of pole replacement to keep costs to new attachers closer to efficient, competitive, yet compensatory to pole owners, levels.
• Forgo imposing unnecessary regulatory burdens on providers – Ensuring burdens are not imposed will encourage qualified and experienced providers to participate in state programs, maximizing the number of providers competing for funding. Light touch regulation has produced a marketplace where speeds are getting faster, competition is growing, prices are flat (even as inflation surges in other sectors) and networks are reliable and resilient (even as the pandemic drove unprecedented surges in traffic).
• Promote Digital Literacy and Adoption – Many consumers need financial support or digital literacy education to become subscribers.

¹ See, USTelecom Research Brief, U.S. Broadband Investment Continued Upswing in 2018 (July 31, 2019), https://www.ustelecom.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/USTelecom-Research-Brief-Capex-2018-7-31-19.pdf