Well, actually...

That kinda/sorta was the mandate, until we put a telecom shill in charge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010

Where did congress grant the FCC the authorities for that order?

Ahem.

"An independent U.S. government agency overseen by Congress, the commission is the United States' primary authority for communications law, regulation and technological innovation."

Source: https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/what-we-do

You can have arguments until forever about what they should or shouldn't do, but their raison d'être is to set policy according to these overarching objectives.

Oh, and just to be clear, the lack of an Oxford comma in that quote is inexcusable :)

Ahem, the authority comes from Title 2 passed in 1934.

In 2005, the FCC decided that ISPs should be regulated by them. From 2005 - 2012, Congress failed to pass new bills granting the FCC this authority. It was denied by congress. In 2015, the FCC decided that they didn't congress to grant that authority.

So yeah, the FCC website claiming they have an authority is not an impartial source. Two years later, the FCC reverted back to the Title I classification.

So for 2 years, the FCC claimed a power that they were not authorized to claim.

If Congress wants the FCC to have this power they can easily pass a bill granting them that authority, they have repeatedly failed to do so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_S...

The very first sentence of the communications act of 1934 says the FCC exists to regulate communication by wire, congress need not pass a law granting it[1]. And what wording could the new law possibly use that is more explicit than the existing "for the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire"

It's inexplicable that the same party that claims the act establishing the FCC is more limited than the wording states while the federal arbitration act is continuously expanded to cover cases that neither the authors nor previous courts ever tolerated.

[1]https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf

Seriously, read this - you'll learn something.

https://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/why-title-ii-is-not...

The GOP lays out an obviously slanted view about why they are opposed to the "utility-style" regulation that Title II entails.

However, this assumes that the market is functional when it's been clear since the '96 Telecom Act that it has been anything but. The idea that the FCC can't claim this authority without Congress acting first is FUBAR.

From pricing (generally higher for lower speed) to barriers to entry (the upfront cost for infrastructure is enormous), time has shown that carriers and ISPs will refuse to behave unless they are forced to.

Legislation is needed, but Republican arguments that a light touch will "preserve innovation" or some other nonsense doesn't work. 1993 was a long time ago and almost anyone who cares about this issue will tell you that Internet access is a utility (essential service, widely available, for reasonable cost) but the incumbent providers don't act like one.

(Save for maybe Google/WebPass, Sonic, and any number of municipal broadband initiatives)

Bit off topic wrt robocalls, but on topic wrt FCC mandates.

What do you think about the 'Free Press' group asking FCC to sensor Trump's corona virus updates?

Does FCC have authority to do that?

https://thefederalist.com/2020/04/02/far-left-media-group-as...

It was granted in the Telecommunications Act of 1934.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934