Today’s announcement by the FCC that it will put to a vote Chairman Tom Wheeler’s plan to reclassify Internet service providers (ISPs) under Title II of the Communications Act, was met with strong reactions from carriers and consumer organizations. 

Predictably, AT&T and Verizon were dismayed by the move, with reports already surfacing that the two largest U.S. wireless companies are mounting legal action.

CTIA President and CEO Meredith Attwell Baker expressed concern about the announcement, saying Wheeler’s approach could jeopardize the U.S. broadband market and result in significant uncertainty for years to come. 

“The mobile innovation and investment – $120 billion since 2010 alone – that American consumers rely on will be placed at risk by the FCC applying intrusive regulatory restrictions on mobile broadband for the first time,” Attwell Baker said. “We continue to believe Congress’s bipartisan efforts to provide explicit authority to the FCC is the best path forward to preserve an open Internet and provide certainty for all stakeholders.” 

CTIA has consistently argued that the FCC doesn’t have the authority to reclassify ISPs under Title II. In an afternoon media briefing, FCC officials said that they “respectfully disagree” with CTIA’s take on the matter. 

Consumer advocacy groups like Public Knowledge and the Greenlining Institute applauded Wheeler’s action. 

Chris Lewis, vice president of Government Affairs at Public Knowledge, called the announcement “historic”, adding Americans have been waiting over a year for the FCC to restore Open Internet protections that were previously vacated by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. 

“The Wheeler proposal is designed to prohibit blocking and paid prioritization, ensuring that no innovator or internet user will have to ask their ISP for permission to reach all parts of the Internet or offer new services,” Lewis wrote in statement. 

Many believed that Wheeler was forced into action on the issue by comments that President Obama made, urging the FCC to act on applying Title II to ISPs. FCC officials said the President’s comments were taken as part of the over four million Americans who submitted opinions to the FCC’s request for comment. 

It’s no surprise that both AT&T and Verizon have promised a bitter legal fight. AT&T has already addressed two strongly worded letters to the FCC. 

“Those who oppose efforts at compromise because they assume Title II rests on bullet proof legal theories are only deceiving themselves,” wrote Hank Holquist, AT&T’s vice president of regulatory, in a public policy blog on the company’s website.

In the year since the original rules Net Neutrality rules were vacated, AT&T was one of the first to make hay. The carrier began throttling Netflix traffic over its network until it secured a monetary deal with the streaming video provider that involves Netflix paying for preferential bandwidth. 

Given the FCC’s wording, it appears that these types of agreements would fall under “paid prioritization” and would be outlawed under the new rules. 

Netflix released the following statement in reponse to the matter: 

“The FCC is poised to take decisive action that will ensure consumers get the Internet access they pay for without ISPs restricting, influencing or meddling with their choices. We support the commission asserting jurisdiction over interconnection and implementing a case-by-case process that prevents ISPs from charging unfair and unreasonable tolls. If such an oversight process had been in place last year, we certainly would’ve used it when a handful of ISPs opted to hold our members hostage until we paid up.” 

Verizon expressed its displeasure with Wheeler’s actions in a statement published on its policy blog. 

Michael E. Glover, Verizon senior vice president and deputy general counsel, public policy and government affairs, called regulating of the Internet unnecessary and counterproductive.

“It is unnecessary because all participants in the Internet ecosystem support an open Internet, and the FCC can address any harmful behavior without taking this radical step,” Glover wrote. “Moreover, Congress is working on legislation that would codify open Internet rules once and for all. It is counterproductive because heavy regulation of the Internet will create uncertainty and chill investment among the many players — not just Internet service providers — that now will need to consider FCC rules before launching new services.”

Verizon has continued to support a new bill introduced by Republicans in Congress that would give the FCC authority to support Net Neutrality rules without handing over Title II authority to the Commission.

Sprint was less reactionary, as CTO Stephen Bye played down the effects of a “light touch Title II.” In a letter filed with the FCC in January, Bye wrote that any new Net Neutrality rules should include appropriate forbearance and allow mobile operators to flexibly manage networks and differentiate services.

He pointed to the 1993 changes Congress made to the Telecommunications Act that allowed for more competition in the mobile industry. He said that “light touch regulatory regime emanated from Title II common carriage regulation.”

In the end, Bye urged the FCC to work towards a solution that would benefit both consumers, while also recognizing the unique nature of wireless networks. 

“[Sprint urges] the FCC and Congress not to be distracted by debates over Title II but to focus on competition by ensuring that any net neutrality regulations adopted recognize the unique network management challenges faced by mobile carriers,” Bye wrote.

As for the regional carrier, Competitive Carrier Association President & CEO Steven Berry, said in a statement that he remains concerned how the FCC will address the need for flexibility for network management.

“Despite this concern, we are glad to see the Chairman’s proposal secures support for continued maintenance and expansion of mobile broadband and look forward to reviewing the details of the Order,” Berry said.