The latest iteration of net neutrality rules formally kicked off with a 3-2 party-line vote by FCC members in front of a standing-room-only crowd on Feb. 26, 2015. After many twists and turns in a lengthy process with millions of comments submitted, that included a significant course correction by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, the final order was released in March 2015. It reclassified broadband as a Title II telecom service subject to some common-carrier regulation under the Communications Act.

This Communications Daily Special Report on net neutrality covers the events spanning a period from commissioners voting Feb. 26, 2015, to approve an FCC ban against internet providers discriminating in the content they deliver to broadband subscribers and reclassifying such service, all the way through to court challenges that continue to this day. This Special Report contains four parts. Each excerpts multiple stories written over many months by Communications Daily journalists including Howard Buskirk and David Kaut.

On Oct. 27, 2015, the stage was set for the much-scrutinized court hearing on FCC net neutrality rules and broadband reclassification under Title II of the Communications Act. That day, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit identified judges in the case as David Tatel and Sri Srinivasan, both Democratic appointees, and Senior Judge Stephen Williams, a Republican appointee. As Communications Daily first reported Oct. 28, Tatel was the most-watched judge in the case (see 1510280052). This Part III of our Special Report on net neutrality explores the hearing and continuing legal challenges. Part I was on the rules themselves (see 1609150017) and Part II on pleadings to the court that led up to Dec. 4, 2015, oral argument (see 1609230009). Part IV is on the court's eventual decision (see 1610210015).

Commissioner Mike O'Rielly says the FCC has made strides in resolving his concerns that commissioners faced censorship on pending agency items while Chairman Tom Wheeler and his staff were free to selectively disclose matters. "Thankfully, we've had decent progress toward fixing this one process area," O'Rielly said, responding to our query. However, questions remain about a leak that FCC and congressional Republicans say helped scuttle a bipartisan Lifeline compromise among commissioners March 31, which is being investigated by the agency's inspector general. Responses to a Communications Daily Freedom of Information Act request detail much late congressional lobbying of the FCC on Lifeline.

The FCC exceeds all but one other federal commission in after-hours document issuances, Communications Daily found, a practice that has the effect of delaying reaction by affected parties and that raises transparency concerns. Almost every other business day last quarter, the FCC on average posted something online about an hour after regular hours end at 5:30 p.m. Eastern. Only the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) exceeded during Q2 the 27 items the FCC released after business hours, and most other agencies issued no evening items, we found through Freedom of Information Act and other requests to independent federal commissions with a national purview. Over half of late FCC items were from Chairman Tom Wheeler's office. The FCC released another 32 items between 5 p.m. and 5:29 p.m., also after most agencies stop issuing documents.

The FCC under Chairman Tom Wheeler is seen by many as among the most partisan in the agency's 82-year history. Other commissions have had deep divisions between Democrats and Republicans, and sometimes between members of the same party. But observers said that under Wheeler, a forceful chairman not afraid of 3-2 votes, divisions have become wider than ever.

The FCC has come under fire for rulemaking policies and practices by everyone from lawmakers to its minority-party commissioners, though its openness and transparency -- especially in comparison with some other regulatory agencies -- could be worse, said several commission watchers and regulatory agency experts. Considering the amount of rulemaking the FCC engages in, "it works pretty well," Free Press Policy Director Matt Wood told us.

Three months before a presidential election that could signal the end of his time in the driver’s seat, has Chairman Tom Wheeler’s FCC done what he said it would when he took office? Based on interviews with FCC officials, pay-TV executives and communications attorneys of many stripes, the answer is, “Mostly.”

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's legacy on cybersecurity remains up for considerable debate in what are likely the closing months of his chairmanship, stakeholders said in interviews. Wheeler's stated focus on improving sector cybersecurity through public-private partnerships generated early progress, but more-recent FCC actions stemming from Communications Act Title II reclassification of broadband as a telecom service raise uncertainty about that commitment, experts said. The FCC announced in 2014 that it would be making cybersecurity a bigger public safety focus (see report in the Feb. 19, 2014, issue). Wheeler that year began calling for what he called a “new paradigm” on cybersecurity risk management in which the private sector would lead development of standards on cybersecurity issues (see report in the June 13, 2014, issue).

The FCC could learn much about process from state utility commissions, said state commissioners in interviews amid their lawsuit against the federal regulator over usurping state powers (see 1606030053). State commissioners from both parties and four states said it should be a priority for the FCC to answer stakeholder concerns about transparency and politicization at the federal agency. NARUC President Travis Kavulla told us his Montana Public Service Commission "and probably most state commissions have much more sunshine than the FCC does." The FCC isn’t dysfunctional, but to maintain public trust it shouldn’t take openness concerns lightly, said Florida PSC Commissioner Ronald Brisé.